Holy shit, he actually proposed a tariff. That's essentially what his 'import tax' is.
AND I LOVE IT. Are there any other anti-free-trade conservatives here? Once upon a time the Republicans were pro-tariff. Maybe they can be again.
Trump supports 35% tariff on foreign goods coming into this country made by American companies in order to pressure them to come back
Trump/Cruz is our only option
yall should remove sales tax on american made goods by american owned companies
The Republican party was founded by abraham lincoln along with german socialst, fourty eighter. It's not suprising they've alway believe in protectionsm considering socialist don't know shit about liberty or economics
>>55422380
absolute mad man m8
>>55422380
Tariffs protect domestic industry and increase employment, but typically result in higher prices for consumers.
So there needs to be a good mix.
>>55422477
>Trump supports 35% tariff on foreign goods coming into this country made by American companies in order to pressure them to come back
So we're pressuring enterprises to go elsewhere with our regulation and tax system, then pressuring them back with tariffs?
How about we stop pressuring period, and actually be a competitive country to take your ball and play?
On the debate stage no one raises the point of why we are losing business to foreign countries in the first place.
>>55422380
>Cruz
Gas yourself shill. You're in /Trump/, not /plebbit/.
>>55422380
Trade protectionism is the only way to support your own country from globalist kikes.
You won't get cheap crap made in China anymore, but it won't matter because your own economy will be more resilient as a nation of makers and not buyers.
>>55423005
>Free trade is a jewish conspiracy
>We should regress from a service economy to an industrial economy so we'll be more resilient against ??????
>>55422380
Tariff is almost here, and its re-authorization is inevitable.
Say good bye to net 600 billion in capital outflow per year due to negative balance of trade.
Chink nations on suicide watch.
Marxists on suicide watch.
>Karl Marx: "But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."
>>55423194
Nigger, the tertiary economy, aka service economy, sits on top of and feeds off of primary and secondary economies. If you hollow out your primary and secondary economies, there's nothing left to fuel your service economy but quantitative easing and money printing to infinity, that's why we have $20 trillion in debt.
>>55423201
>protectionalism
>good
sigh..../pol/ i worry about you guys
Me. Who /isolationist/ here?
>>55423858
>protectionism
>bad
Every global superpower, post-industrial revolution, initially climbed to that position based on protectionist policies. Every single one. Great Britain, USA, and now China, all achieved global leadership due to a manufacturing base build up made possible exclusively through protectionist policies.
>>55423699
>Nigger, the tertiary economy, aka service economy, sits on top of and feeds off of primary and secondary economies.
Yes
>If you hollow out your primary and secondary economies, there's nothing left to fuel your service economy
No. Other countries primary and secondary economies take over. We don't have to grow bananas. Instead we provide services, which is generally our comparative advantage, and other countries provide industrial goods, which is generally their comparative advantage. We both benefit from the increased efficiency, just as two people trading face to face do.
>but quantitative easing and money printing to infinity, that's why we have $20 trillion in debt.
These don't even fuel the economy. It's paper. But you know that, do what do you even mean by this? Also printing money doesn't increase the debt, only inflation. Issuing treasury securities to pay for spending increases debt. None of this has anything to do with free trade vs protectionism.
>>55424178
And now they are decaying under globalism free trade TPP shit.
>>55422380
I like Ted. I never heard him propose an "import tax."
I'm for free trade and despise protectionism. I don't like this.
>>55422380
>anti-free-trade conservatives
No such thing. If you oppose free trade, you're a c
Cruz on Fox Business RIGHT NOW
>Cavuto only interested in asking him horse race questions
>>55422949
Umm, do you not watch the debates? This is literally one of the biggest points Trump makes.
Tariffs are a tool.
You can't use them as the rule or else they don't matter and aren't a bargaining chip.
>>55424197
Reducing your primary and secondary economies weakens a country more than just economically.
>>55424178
Would you think I was retarded if I cited the successful empires under mercantilism or feudalism?
Free trade is new in human history dipshit. And the USA is still top dog despite practicing free trade, hong kong exploded under free trade, and china relaxed their restrictions because of that experiment and are emerging as a major economic power.
Economists only argue for minor protectionism under very specific circumstances like developing shithole economies, and even that's debatable.
>>55422380
tariffs fuck off with this shit exploding prices to save faggot unions
>>55424383
All of them make the point about regulation, but not when foreign competition is the topic
A tariff will just mutually harm us and mexico
>>55424178
You don't realize the economy changes when you become a superpower
you move away from manufacturing based economies and on to more information self-sustaining based ones.
Protectionism is something you grow out of
All that gay shit is going to do is cause the price of goods in america to cost A LOT more.
People will literally riot when they can't get their cheap goods.
>>55424178
The industrial revolution only occurred as the liberalization of the economy was underway. Essentially the majority of those nations at the very least created internal free trade zones as a prerequisite to industrialization. The exception was China which followed behind the industrial advances of the west.
>>55424300
>reading conservatives who are pro-manufacturing out of the movement
Not so fast, Bill Kekley. You aren't reading anyone out of the movement. The ranks of pro-manufaturing people within the conservative movement and Republican party in general are growing every day.
>Lincoln's tariffs started the Civil War, so they must be bad
Civil War was inevitable, and like slavery, tariffs was just an excuse to rumble. Tariffs are also the reason the Union won the war, because previous protectionist policies built up the manufacturing base of the North and gave them a stronger economy, strong enough to pummel the agrarian economy of the Southern secessionists.
>>55422949
trump talks about that all the fuckin time
>>55424454
>Reducing your primary and secondary economies weakens a country more than just economically.
How does that work?
If we suck at growing bananas, why would we grow bananas? If we suck at making product X in a sweat shop, why would we make product X? Trade allows use to specialize in our advantages and not have to make every product or service we want.
>>55424530
>China #1 economy, b/c free trade
Hah! China is the most protectionist nation the world has ever known! Always has been! Their tremendous surplus of trade, due to their strongly protectionist policies, is exactly what propelled them to the top spot. With tariffs, non-tariff barriers to imports like VATs and their currency manipulation resulting in a substantially devalued yuan, they have an effective tariff of 80% ! You literally have no idea what you are talking about!
>>55424723
If you can't produce anything you're fucked if other countries can't or won't either. I'm just saying that if you can produce something that's instrumental to the economy, sometimes it's good to take a slight loss in profit to have the reliability of domestic production capabilities. Foreign countries are proven to be less stable than the U.S. on average, especially economically.
>>55424603
>tariff support means union support
No - there are tons of right-to-work states free of unions where manufacturing is thriving in the United States - those are red states, and that's exactly where these factories will spring up once the tariff is in effect.
>>55424822
China has had historically strong growth because they are playing catch up and have a fifth of the worlds population.
>>55424878
Luckily the united states is friends with most of the world and as the leader of the free world no one can afford not to be our friend.
>>55423005
>>55422712
protectionism is the american system of economics going back to Alexander Hamilton
>>55425050
>Luckily the united states is friends with most of the world
>>55424963
>playing catch up
>i.e., the U.S. has allowed China to keep their own protectionist policies, while US lowers their barriers to China imports to virtually negligible levels, thus making the US a sap who is easily cheated
that's some game of catch up, and they've caught up now - they are the #1 economy. Time to take the training wheels off, insist on fair trade, and scrap "free" trade, b/c there is no such thing as a free lunch.
>5th of world's population
by that logic, Africa should be surging, too.
>>55424822
You're retarded, china is not the #1 economy, we are. And that's just measuring GDP, when you compare GDP per capita, you know, taking into account how many fucking people are in china, they are pathetic. For a lot of reasons, but one being their protectionists policies.
Also balance/surplus/deficit of trade means nothing. Actually it means that we are sending them pieces of paper and they are sending us products. Paper that eventually makes its way back to the US anyway because that's where it's most useful.
>they have an effective tariff of 80%
They should be worried
>You literally have no idea what you are talking about!
The irony pressed my shirt
>>55424723
this was exactly the argument British free-traders made after the US had won its independence. How good do you think America was at forging iron or manufacturing compared to Britain in 1789? All of America's economic strength was consciously built from scratch. If America had listened to people like you it would still be an agrarian backwater shipping crops to Europe as a third-rate power.
>>55425077
>>55425143
>protectionism as American as apple pie
International Jewry btfo
Jew financial speculator David Ricardo's Comparative Advantage theory btfo
globalist shills on suicide watch
>>55424655
this
>>55425291
> per capita GDP is the only "real" "legitimate" way to measure who is the #1 nation
By that measure, Monaco or Lichtenstein are the world's most powerful nations. Bullshit. China is an aggressor on the world stage - global hegemony is a legitimate aim of U.S. foreign policy, and we don't have to handicap ourselves in the race for global dominance for any reason, much less to give a dictatorship like China, who is currently our strongest rival, a leg up.
Cruz probably has the most to gain from being VP
Trump/Cruz would fucking dominate for decades
>>55425299
Gretzky dubs don't lie
>>55425386
>Lincoln
>Strength
>Power
>Majesty
What's that under Lincoln's elbow there? Looks like a fasces, binding the states together.
>>55424878
>If you can't produce anything you're fucked if other countries can't or won't either. I'm just saying that if you can produce something that's instrumental to the economy, sometimes it's good to take a slight loss in profit to have the reliability of domestic production capabilities.
Well yeah, any sudden economic shift like that can be a disaster. This is why you think twice about trading with countries you think you might go to war with, but then again, trading reduces the chances of war because it creates a co-dependency.
>Foreign countries are proven to be less stable than the U.S. on average, especially economically.
Yeah, but domestic competition or foreign competition from other countries keeps track of that. They will be replaced when open season starts. And the long term benefits of the trade should cushion the blow of converting infrastructure. And if it wasn't long term benefits, the trade didn't go on long enough to shift your domestic economy anyway.
>>55425508
>Trump as POTUS
>Cruz as VP
I am 100% ok with this
>>55425185
Per person they are much less productive than we are even with their inflated economic numbers bolstered by excessive government subsidies. They are where we were 100 years ago.
>by that logic, Africa should be surging, too.
Africa isn't stable enough for major industrial investment.
>>55422380
I am not interested in tariffs, but other than that Ted killed it tonight.
to quote F. Bastiat: "When goods cannot cross borders, soldiers will"...
>>55425143
Adam smith is spinning in his grave
>>55425710
>Adam smith is spinning in his grave
Adam Smith is overrated.
>>55425299
>neo /pol/ is advocating left wing revisionist history because trump wants tariffs
I wouldnt expect any less
>>55425299
>Jew financial speculator David Ricardo's Comparative Advantage theory btfo
No it's not. Ricardo argued that there's a greater level of productivity with free trade. A greater one, some countries might have a decrease in production, but this will be made up by others increases.
The American president shouldn't care about others increasing production, if American production is decreasing.
>>55422949
How do you compete with Chinese slaves and currency manipulation?
>>55425637
>China now where we were 100 years ago
That's good. The aggressive way they are behaving in International Waters lately makes me want to keep about a 100 year gap between them and us.
>>55425771
>>55425710
>talking about Smith
Everyone knows Jean-Baptiste Say is the true king.
>>55425792
>any tack and shift in viewpoint that does not overtly support the status quo constitutes left wing revisionism
>heads I win, tails you lose
No thanks, I already gave at the office.
>>55422628
That's a good idea imo
>>55425446
That's twice you've put words in my mouth
The only case I'm making is they are a poor economic performer per capita, and they only rival our GDP because of their huge population. If they were a comparable population, they wouldn't be a global player, let alone the beacon of hope for backwards economic policies like you think.
If china can into economics, and their GDP per capita rose to ours, we are totally fucked. FUCKED. Like OVER fucked.
>>55425185
>by that logic, Africa should be surging, too.
If Africa was as civilized as china, and say, A COUNTRY AND NOT A CONTINENT, yes it would
>>55426017
At times like these we should thank the glorious leader who came up with the one child policy that will stunt China's growth as the population declines.
>>55425829
Only this time, the white man is too divided and infected with cultural marxism to put them in their place
>>55426017
>You put words in my mouth - you rhetoric'd me!
kek
>If china can into economics, and their GDP per capita rose to ours, we are totally fucked.
Agreed
>>55425295
No, it's not the same argument.
We're talking about dumping primary and secondary economies we don't need to do ourselves anymore. Not developing new economies. I've already said there is an arguable case for protectionism for developing economies.
>>55426171
>Amerikeks too keked
That remains to be seen, although I am inclined to agree with you. I believe there is an anglo resurgence when I see it
>>55426118
>China one child policy
>stunted China's growth
kind of a tangent. Did it really though?
>>55422380
Here is a video discussing his tax plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z_zeeKyYoI
>>55425608
You're rambling. What do you mean by long-term benefits? 10 years, 20 years, or 100? The fact is a protectionist economy is more stable than a globalistic one, period. That's all I'm arguing here.
>>55425828
>How do you compete with Chinese slaves and currency manipulation?
I don't know dick about currency, but lower wage labor per hour does not mean that labor is cheaper per unit of output. Chinese workers are not as productive as american workers.
They have to make the product in a shitty country where business is less safe, then ship it across an ocean. I'm sure we can compete if we make our country business friendly and stop adding costs with bullshit regulations.
>>55425628
>8 years of Trump Prez
>then 8 years of Cruz Prez
>1/5 of my life span
>everything would be alright
It's way too much to wish for, isn't it.
>>55425846
>Jean-Baptiste Say
I know not of this man, but he seems interesting.
From his Wiki, I can see that he argued Great Britain would be better off abandoning protectionist measures aimed at increasing the strength of their Navy along the rational that it would be more lucrative to do things differently, and it being in the French self-interest to see Great Britain weakened militarily it makes sense that he would.
It's pretty typical of people and ethnic groups arguing against protectionism for a certain nation that they have a hidden interest in the military decline of that nation. Moves on a chessboard.
>>55425896
>any tack and shift in viewpoint that does not overtly support the status quo constitutes left wing revisionism
Did you actually look at the picture?>>55425143
Yeah, the founding fathers wanted Keynesian economics and sucked that new deal dick before they even knew what they were. The quote mining is hilarious.
>>55426449
>TRUMP/CRUZ 16 YEAR REIGN
As long as we are wishing for stuff, let's go big.
>>55422380
Tariffs are stupid And so are you
>>55426449
It sounds like a dream, so it is
>>55426539
>founding fathers
>Keynesian economics
>new deal fornication
>founding fathers = Keynesian economics + new deal fornication
You throw a hell of a curve ball, but it looks outside the strike zone to me.
>>55422380
trump this
trump that
trump kiddies brain washed as fuck.
and op putting this try hard cubo Canadian.
literally kill yourselves
>>55426401
>You're rambling.
Wow please don't do this tonight. Twice a year someone can't read, and reduces my position to "rambling". It's a waste of time every time.
>>55426401
>What do you mean by long-term benefits? 10 years, 20 years, or 100?
Actually the term doesn't matter. Bad choice of words on my part. Trade happens over time and provides benefits over time. Your point was that a break down in trade could cause more economic damage than if the partnership never happening at all? I imagine the longer the trade goes on, the more that potential damage is offset by the advantages enjoyed over time.
>The fact is a protectionist economy is more stable than a globalistic one, period. That's all I'm arguing here.
I don't buy that either. By opening your doors to trade, you increase your potential sources of goods and services. A part of your domestic economy can break the same way a foreign economy you depend on breaks, the only difference is you have other countries to rely on as a replacement in that event, instead of just your own economy. A country has less options going it alone, the same a person living by himself in the woods.
>>55426432
>Chinese workers are not as productive as american workers.
Actually, they're more productive.
>>55426789
Yes that's in the picture.
You linked it and said free trade was BTFO, I pointed out that this is promoting left wing revisionism, you straw manned me, I tell you to look again, and now I'm the one throwing curve balls?
Enjoy your non-argument
>>55422380
>anti-free-trade conservatives
Jeez, that shows a real lack of basic economics understanding.
>>55422628
this. hat knows
>>55423004
NEWSFLASH FAGGOT: HE GOT STUMPED
>>55427354
Artificially because of all the regulations here. It's obviously more expensive to do business in the US, despite being safer, more reliable, better infrastructure, better skills, and not having to ship across an ocean. Pretty much describes how much we got fucked.
>>55422380
test
Anybody else Cruz-Carson here?
>>55422380
one of Donald's main platforms has involved tariffs
>>55422628
>y'all should remove sales tax on american made goods by american manufactured goods
fixed that for you, canada. Pretty close to the mark.
>>55422949
>what is the corporate tax rate
Tariffs are not the solution.
We need stop spending money killing muslims and start putting it back into our infrastructure. We haven't really made infrastructure a major concern since the 70s.
While developing and now develeoped nations like China build infrastructure constantly. Making it part of why it is cheap to make stuff over there.
>>55427745
>We need stop spending money killing muslims
No we don't.
>>55427439
Anti-free market conservatives are called Paloconservatives.
>Trump comes out of the gate suggesting tariffs and import taxes
>all the kekservative establishment fags go "haha, sure thing, nutjob"
>Sleepy Sanchez here brings it up
>"OH WHAT A REVOLUTIONARY"
>>55427959
*Paleoconservatives.
>>55427959
>he thinks free trade and a free market are the same things
don't you have prayers to be making mohamed?
>>55424197
How does borrowing money with interest from the fed not increase your debt you dense mother fucker. It's literally impossible for you to pay the money back since it doesn't exist
>>55427976
the neocons are in full damage control mode
>>55427959
If you are economically liberal and socially conservative, I think that just makes you a statist.
>>55428100
They are running out of the "Trump Killer of the Week" candidates.
Will they get down to Lindsay Grahm before they accept the BIG TRUMP COCK?
>>55427745
>>55427816
We can do both if we listen to Rand and stop paying poor people through income taxes. EIC and child tax credits are a huge money making scheme for low income blacks and hispanics(illegals too). A single mom with 3 or 4 kids that work a shit McDs job can get well over $7000 from other taxpayer as a refund that she never paid in because she claimed the kids as dependents. It's free cash at the start of each year that costs us over $1 trillion dollars but politicians are too scared to admit they're working working Americans over.
>>55428185
top kek. who do you think the next "trump killer" will be? looks like they're trying to pump up rubio
>>55428087
QE is when the fed prints money and lends it to banks, not the US government. This doesn't increase the national debt, which is our government's debt, not the population's debt. You're upside down australia.
When the government needs more money that can't be covered by tax revenues, they sell bonds. That's how we acquire new national debt.
>>55428291
>paying poor people through income tax
wut?
>>55428185
Moderates and establishment types loathe Cruz. You're full of shit if you think they will ever back him.
>>55428339
Did you not listen to Rand? The EIC, earned income credit allows low income people to be given an amount of money because they are low income, at a certain age, employed, and/or have children. I've gotten it once myself and it's only about $400 or so IIRC.
The real money maker is child credits. It's money for simply popping out kids. Money that they didn't pay into the system. Get it?
https://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
http://amac.us/amnesty-bonuses-tax-code-illegal-immigrants-receive-earned-income-tax-credit/
>>55428510
no i didn't watch the debate, and what does the EIC have to do with the income tax?
>>55428558
When shaneequa files income tax, she gets money back from the government in the form of a tax credit for every child she has. Tax payers fork the bill, and she makes a profit popping out kids she can't support.
>>55428558
It's a refund of sorts that you receive when you file your taxes.
>>55422949
If you think we are ever going to be able to rid ourselves of minimum wage within in the next century your insane. less regulation is a step in the right direction but it will still be hard to compete with Asian children working for a quarter a month.
>>55428714
And when 43% of the country pays no federal income tax, you've got a base of 43%+ democrats.
>>55427526
>>55428348
They backed fearO'rina the second they thought she could surpass Trump in the last debate. I wouldn't be surprised.
>>55428922
Yeah minimum wage is the hardest target. The only way to get rid of it is for the population at large to understand labor prices are a result of supply and demand, which will never fucking happen
Regulation and employee benefits are more realistic
>>55429049
Cruz is just as bad as Trump to them.
Carli was pushed just keep muh women on the debate stage.
>>55429049
Fiorina is a corporate shill. She messages well enough and has the vag factor, which makes moderates feel good about supporting her but I can see her governing just like Obama or JEB!!!!!! I see her pulled left and right by RINOs.
The best candidate is always the one the establishment and libs outright shit on and ignore when convenient. That's Cruz, Carson, and Trump.
>>55422380
>>55423201
EAT SHIT MARX
>>55424629
>protectionism is something you grow out of
>TPP literally extends government-granted monopoly protection (copyrights) to TWO CENTURIES and allows government-granted monopoly protection (patents) on swathes of new things
Yeah instead the protectionism is global and only goes one way
ur exports will now be fucked
>>55422380
>Surprised he "actually" proposed tariff
>That's what his 'import tax' is
>Tariff = Tax on imports
>mfw OP
