free trade vs protectionism. Which are you for and why?
>>76678779
Protectionism, insofar self-sufficiency can isolate you from extreme economical events, both bubbles and busts
>>76678779
i am for good trade deals
100% of economists believe free trade is good
Planned economy.
>>76678779
free trade within US, and protectionism with Foreign countries.
Californian can compete with Indiana
Indiana can not compete with China, mexico - wage differences are too much
>>76678779
I'm for Jesus Christ. If you're in government you just gotta work for God and ask him for assistance in all situations.
>>76678779
Free trade is only advantages with comparative advantage, which no longer exists in modern trade, thus it is the tool of the eternal jew.
Protectionism is vital to the survival of the nation-state
>>76679030
>100% of economists believe free trade is good
No, they agree that free trade increases GDP, which it does - until the bubble pops, and the economy collapses.
>>76678779
its not like Mexico is selling Mexican brand/company cars here...
Ford is making Fords in Mexico with American technology, where its cool to pollute everything... and selling the Fords in the US with NO tariff...
>>76678779
free trade wins for both parties but it can't be made with countries who heavily subsidize or protect their markets
Third worlders need industries so they stay in their own country but autarky is important too.
>>76679256
lol, nope.
trade doesn't stir bubbles, monetary stimulus does.
>>76679037
Plan a bullet to your brain commie
>>76679037
Everyone should laugh at this man
https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
Are you trying to have a rational political discussion on /pol/ ? gtfo
>>76679338
Huehue's got it right. I believe in free-trade in so far as the other countries we are trading with are on a level playing-field. We shouldn't be trading with China if they are using slave-like wages for their industries, because there is no way we could ever realistically compete with them; our industries would just relocate to china.
>>76679030
yeah if the rest of the world gets 500,000,001 dollars and I lose 500,000,000 dollars that is a netgain to economists.
>>76679436
> trade doesn't stir bubbles, monetary stimulus does.
What about the tulip crash, the very first recorded crash?
Thoughts on this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DhagKyvDck
>>76679436
which is an inevitable outcome of free trade, as currencies become overvalued and debt spirals out of control
If you have global "free trade" you don't even have a sovereign nation.
>>76678779
fuck off friedman is a kike
>>76678779
I'm for tariffs. foreigners can fund the government instead of us.
>>76678779
Protectionism. Free trade is for good goys.
>Austrian economics
Can't make this shit up
>>76678779
>friedman
>supporter of free trade
He was only for the actual free market on paper. In reality, Friedman was a proponent of what is called """free trade""" but was not free trade at all.
>>76679030
>le trade deals meme
You don't need trade deals. Trade deals is how cronies make sure only they benefit from trade. If you want to control trade for any reason (e.g. protecting infant industries) just use a tarriff
>>76678966
Last time I checked this is what caused the first world war dumbfuck
>>76680340
what gave you that idea
>>76678966
Also smoot Hawley tarriff in the early twentieth century similar to what Trump has proposed, is what caused the great depression
>>76680340
Not i didn't
Germany and Britain were engaged in a trade war for access to new international markets, for which Germany also desired new colonial outposrs, literally nothing to do with protectionism
>>76680529
You DO know that the depression started in 1929 right?
>>76680013
Your retarded
>>76680529
>one tariff can cause a global meltdown
That's not how economics works. People have written very big, thick books about the causes of the great depression. Perhaps you should read one?
ffs, you keep on mentioning and quoting outdated economists and bunk theories
>>76680340
>american education
trump is for free trade. unfortunately, lots of americans are retarded, so trump has to pander to them.
>>76680340
>It wasn't the series of alliances or the assassination.
>It was trade tariffs.
How many mental gymnastics did you have to do to get there?
>>76678779
The reason you have heard of Korea is multi-generational, brutally militant protectionism. They have relaxed somewhat, now that they're successful, but without intelligently done protectionism they would be behind the Phillipines.
>>76680823
source?
>>76680885
This. The "Washington Consensus" is a fucking meme that has impoverished every nation stupid enough to embrace it (though in Friedman's defense, that was what it was designed to do.)
Problem with "free trade" is companies such as Gibson Guitars pay off Congress to pass a tariff on imported guitars (Ibanez, ESP, Caparison) because of "muh jobs"..... And Gibson then jacks up the prices of their USA guitars to meet the tariff padded prices of the others...
Also--- no way the USA competes with *any* 3rd world laborer.... that has been discusses here in /pol/ 1000000 times....
It's the "middle man" who rakes in the cash... they get it from wholesalers at 5x cost and sell it to retailers at 10x cost and retailers take only 5% - 8% profit margin to compete with Amazon.
>it's true.
Protectionism. Increasing the GDP is all well and good when it doesn't come at the expense of national interests. And keeping the average American employed and keeping vital industries at home is very much within the national interest.
>>76679079
>free trade within US, and protectionism with Foreign countries.
Full retard
>>76680934
The McRib.
>you got it.
>>76680673
>Thinks Smoot-Hawley was one tariff
>Tells others to read books about the great depression
>>76680533
No it wasn't for New markets it was for new colonies which would give them access to more resources and markets within their own empire, that was the point of imperialism in the nineteenth century which Germany was left out of because they technically didn't become a country until like 1871 leading them to bellicose decision making, partially because of their rapid militarization and arrogance. They couldn't achieve colonies through diplomacy because everything was pretty much already taken so they tried to do it through force failing miserably, leading to the first world war. The whole idea was to try to become entirely self sufficient and stop all international trading which is what led to imperialism.
>>76681122
But where are the jobs ?
"Unskilled" labor is gone. The next generation of USA kids (26 and under) only understand iPhones and working at JC Penney.
The Asians and Nigerians and Indians are going to rule the top jobs.
>can't explain
>>76680673
It was a chain reaction that led to everyone engaging in isolationist economic policies
>>76678779
free trade gives you more options for diplomacy
e.g. - look at the situation with Russia, if we couldnt pull the lever of trade sanctions first we would have to escalate to military actions
suspending trade is a way to send a message without getting too aggro
>>76681361
> within their own empire
that claims makes zero sense
One of the objectives of German economical policy before World War 1 was the expansion of commercial exchange with China, totally independent from actually conquering them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941#Early_Sino-German_relations
> During this period, Germany did not actively pursue imperialist ambitions in China, and appeared relatively restrained compared to Britain and France. Thus, the Chinese government saw Germany as a partner in helping China in its modernization. In the 1880s, the German shipyard AG Vulcan Stettin built two of the most modern and powerful warships of its day—the pre-dreadnought battleships Zhenyuan and Dingyuan—for the Chinese Beiyang Fleet that would see considerable action during the First Sino-Japanese War. After China's first modernization efforts apparently failed following its defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, Yuan Shi-kai requested German help in creating the Self-Strengthening Army (Chinese: 自強軍; pinyin: Zìqiáng Jūn) and the Newly Created Army (新建陸軍; Xīnjìan Lùjūn). German assistance not only concerned military, but also industrial and technical matters. For example, in the late 1880s, the Chinese government made a contract with the German company Krupp to build a series of fortifications around Port Arthur.
You would have me believe that Germany wanted to conquer all of China and then integrate it into its markets? Nonsense
There's nothing good about free trade.
People are idiots. They can be easily swindled by anybody.
They need the government to regulate what they can buy so that retards don't crash a countries economy by purchasing stupid shit.
North America just needs to reisolate itself. Canada as the source of precious resources, America as the breadbasket and main consumers, Mexico as the labour force. Add some consistent international research deals and trade foreign for luxury goods and everything Is solved
>/pol/ will disagree with this
>>76679746
China though isn't hurting the US because of slave-like wages because those jobs wouldn't be filled in the American market anyways. You should be more worried about their currency though.
>>76678779
>Free trade
>with Communist countries
>>76682567
US hurts Brazil especially when it comes to heavily subsidizing their corn crops (which btw are worse in productivity than brazilian one's and you should be importing this type of thing and focusing your economy on more industry and etc).
In the end both parts lose.
>>76678779
We tried friedman it didn't work...We lost almost all of our manufacturing...He said that inflation would negate the third worlds lower income.....They cheat and manipulate their currency..
FRIEDMAN WAS WRONG
Or /pol/ is right and a kike destroyed the middle class on purpose
>>76679801
growth in the monetary supply by the Bank of Amsterdam, one of the first central banks of the world
>>76682859
that is now what happened tho
Speculation is independent from monetary policy
>>76681577
Anon, you're fucking retarded.
>>76682921
* not
>>76682788
It hurts their middle class too though. They can't grow income nor productivity.
Free trade is code word for making factories in nonregulated areas. This means gov't eggheads have to work harder detecting lethal materials in those products. I'm not willing to risk "made in China" shit.
I like free trade
>>76682921
speculation is a symptom, not a cause.
>>76678779
Free trade will never work if you're putting massive regulations and taxes in place on your local industry while none on foreign.
>>76682988
Yeah it hurts everyone but the (((1%)))
How about both?
>>76683068
This guy got the right idea.
Taxes hurt almost nothing compared to what bureaucracy does.
>>76683054
people expected that tulips would widely rise in value... it didn't happen, people default
there, you have a crash without monetary policy
>>76683098
Well, it hurts their future prospects too, a stagnant economy in terms of productivy means less profit.
But, it also means less risks and therefore wealth keeps in the hands of those who currently have it.
>>76683154
Huefriend I know this might seem like a foreign concept to you but in civilized countries we learned long ago that you have to regulate industry or else they start doing crazy shit like dumping their toxic refuse out into public water ways.
The developed world does not need less regulation. The developing world just needs more.
>>76682567
You are confused. Manufacturing is coming back because it was never truly cheaper in China, they made it artificially cheaper by dumping (using their giant combined mandatory savings accounts to allow profitless low prices). It "left" and is "coming back" because Americans did those jobs. What you call America was specifically made possible by manufacturing jobs. The actual wages are meaningless both by normal calculus (since they are not tied to capitalist profits but are part of long term central planning) and as a criterion for American willingness (since no American would have to work that job for that wage).
Why not enact free trade with countries that wont devalue their currencies and have slave labor, basically countries on an equal playing field and then use protectionism against countries that we cannot compete against because of slave labor and so on.
>>76678779
I'm not wealthy enough to be impacted by the difference.
>>76680529
>smoot hawley maymay
Opinion discarded
>>76683288
and what caused people's rising expectation on tulip prices? it must be some sort of a collective delusion right?
meh, it was government directed policy to tulip commerce and massive capital inflows due to bad monetary policy, which made people invest in tulips and rise their prices without any meaningful value (because the offer also expanded with supply although the value kept rising). people have a delay of detecting that, but when they did, suddenly, a crash happened.
>>76683295
My main point was that Friedman was wrong.....His main arguement was that free trade wouldn't lead to American companies moving overseas because inflation would balance out the lack of regulations and low wages....HE WAS WRONG.
>>76678779
Protectionism because almost none of what Friedman said in his nice lectures from decades ago has come true.
The only good thing about free trade was that it killed the corrupt American unions, everything else about it has been shit
>>76683315
The same shit that was said when the car industry moved to Japan in the 80s.
China is a bubble and it is going to burst anyway.
>>76683749
Yeah, he was wrong.
hamilton used tariffs.
therefore they r ok
>>76683573
Collective delusions can happen when you have a completely new, exotic product which price has still not being determined by the market, and for which a late entry can transform into lost opportunities of wild margins (what tulip was for Europe back then)
>>76683776
>trusting the predictions of an economist
I mean no monetarist nor keynesian could see the bubble bursting in 2008. Economists have this weird, very weird, thing that their predictions fail all the time.
>>76684034
Or, you know, they're Jews that work for multinational plutocrats and it isn't in their financial interests to talk about things like that.
>>76683928
You're confusing cause and effect my friend.
Exotic products appear because of massive monetary stimulus.
Just look at 2008's crisis, the massive amount of crazy financial products associated to mortgages.
>>76678779
Free trade but with a single land value tax
Georgeism ftw,,, fuck these fat cats just sitting on land and stealing the value the community creates for it
how can someone own land anyway? Land /= property.. you are entitled to all the fruits of your labor but you cant produce land
>>76678779
considering I am not a global citizen nor global capitalist, protectionist.
>>76678779
the question of protectionism vs free trade is ultimately a question of labour competitiveness and trade deficit.
Free trade is ultimately better and results in greater production surplus as economies specialise, but only in an environment where exports are roughly in line with imports, and the trade deals themselves are well negotiated.
our current circumstance in many western countries sees us with a growing and unsustainable trade deficit and national debt, in many ways this is due to un-competitiveness of the labour markets themselves,as well as uncompetitive tax rates and overhead costs (like energy).
economic puritanism is good and fine, so long as you're not on the receiving end of a crippled economy. protectionism will help redevelop some industries, but unless sweeping tax and labour reform is also made, it won't count for much, and could potentially make the u.s. worse off. that said, there's not much room in the future for human labour in manufacturing, so perhaps the right kind of tax reform would do the trick.
>>76683776
I don't really think collective bargaining is a bad thing. Without the employees having any power it's easy to lower wages and benefits especially when there is a surplus of labor. Even if the labor surplus is temporary.
Friedman BTFO on Tarrifs:
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/Milton_Friedman_s_Smoot-Hawley_Lie13239.shtml
>>76683776
>The only good thing about free trade was that it killed the corrupt American unions
That's a bad thing. Non-public sector Unions are god-tier.
>>76684379
Also there's the associated risk that protectionism often creates an uncompetitive industry and helps to create monopolies.
>>76684530
>The purpose of foreign trade is simply not to trade. As with any business, the objective is to sell more than you buy. It is true that some industries may sell less if foreign trade is reduced, but the overall national objective is to have a surplus balance of trade. Smoot-Hawley moved the United States closer to that objective.
Milton Friedman was a conservative on government spending, sound money, limiting the Federal Reserve and government regulation. Therefore, Conservatives bought into Milton Friedman on the issue of Free Trade.
If Friedman ever made a convincing, statistical argument for the benefits of free trade, I have yet to see it. He has given no detailed, exhaustive economic and historical investigation as he did with his monetary history. Rather, he gives simple-minded and often deceptive support for Free Trade. He briefly covers Free Trade in Capitalism and Freedom, but there is no scholarly, detailed and comprehensive examination on the scale such of his monetary history.
>>76684629
>In general, the statistical arguments made by current Free Traders are deceptions. They generally say something like, "the United States economy grew after NAFTA." That may be true, but there is a growing population driven by massive immigration.
>At the same time, they simply ignore the loss of manufacturing jobs and the impending bankruptcy of all U.S. auto companies, soon to be a reality.
>Despite the facts of the matter, the hysteria from The Wall Street Journal (that supports mass immigration for the same reason of cheap labor) and other conservative economists continue the canard of Smoot-Hawley to this day. Remember, being a conservative in economic measures does not necessarily make one a nationalist concerned with the best interests of the United States.
>>76678779
Why should we trade freely with other nations when employers and employees can't trade freely with each other?
Free trade can't work for both countries when one country has a steep comparative advantage in labor. Either force them to raise their minimum wage, abolish ours, or shut the fuck up and lets fill the gaps with tariffs.
>>76684691
>Among those consequences is a repeat of the single action that turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression -- the Hawley-Smoot Act of 1930, which destroyed the international trade system through vindictive tariffs. The "Buy American" clause of the Obama stimulus would have the same exact result. The appalling thing here is that Obama appears to have no understanding of this fact.) - Obama's Busted Bubble, J.R. Dunn, consulting editor of American Thinker.
As seen in the facts shown above, Smoot-Hawley did not destroy the international trade system. It reduced trade into the United States, but to declare that it "destroyed the international trade system" is simply scare mongering.
>Milton Friedman was a globalist peddling his utopian economics of Free Trade. Everything would be better when nations traded without limitation. All boats would rise. The rich nations would be richer because of lower cost goods, and the poor nations would be richer. Free Trade was the emperor's new clothes, smoke and mirrors, song and dance.
>Friedman's globalist economics totally focus on consumption and ignore the problem of production. Free Traders blithely state the United States will solve the loss of core industries by inventing new industries, the dot.com business and other delusions.
>It is also worth pointing out that Friedman supported Open Borders. His only caveat was that our social safety net of welfare was attracting massive immigration and illegal immigration. If the United States opened its borders to five million immigrants a year, that would have been fine with Milton.
>>76684566
The steel industry has a problem like this in the US. Over-subsidization removes the motivation for technological growth.
>>76684799
>A protected economy has the effect of equalizing wealth, driving up the wages of workers and driving down the value of capital. A protected economy is by far the most efficient way to harness the productive efforts of all classes and producing the greatest equality of wealth.
"Even if we were more efficient than the Japanese at producing everything, it would not pay us to produce everything. We should concentrate on doing those things we do best, those things where our superiority is greatest. (Capitalism and Freedom)" - Milton Friedman
>Here Friedman is arguing the discredit ideas of Ricardo and competitive advantage. This notion was shoddy economics to begin with and perhaps applicable a case of the Portuguese producing wine and the English producing wool. But, it is not applicable where advanced nations take their manufacturing methods abroad and teach them to underdeveloped countries to use the cheap labor in these countries.
>>76684629
This. Free Trade is an equivalent to True Communism, an ideal and not a reality, and a disaster if even one participant is not commited.
>Despite this, only a handful of political commentators and economists support ending free trade. Most notable among these are Patrick Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts. Rep. Ron Paul continues to exist in a Free Trade twilight zone, not understanding the negative impact of his libertarian economics in this area.
>The United States was founded as a protectionist nation. The first bill passed by Congress was the tariff of Alexander Hamilton. The United States was on the verge of bankruptcy after it gradually adopted free trade until Abraham Lincoln raised tariffs. From then until the 1960's, the United States was a protectionist country. The 1913 Republican Party Platform reflected America's protectionism.
"We reaffirm our belief in a protective tariff. The Republican tariff policy has been of the greatest benefit to the country, developing our resources, diversifying our industries, and protecting our workmen against competition with cheaper labor abroad, thus establishing for our wage-earners the American standard of living."
>>76679030
>((((economists))))
>>76678779
free trade friedman is the only answer
>>76678779
Can I have a mix of both?
>>76678779
free-trade for products from countries who play by the same rule as us (labor laws, environmental laws, etc.); tariffs on products form those who don't
it's not very complicated guys
>>76679880
>Only economic freedom exists
>>76680094
that's what makes their theories so great, they are a priori true, no amount of empirical and statistical manipulation and mindgames can disprove it and push your narrative.
>>76685144
But then we (and by "we" I mean "the very wealthy" ) couldn't make shit tons of money off of cheap labor.
>>76680640
I don't know what you're objecting to. If you think
>tariffs can't fund the government
Well that's what the US government originally was funded by. If you mean
>it's not foreigners funding it because costs are passed on to the consumers in the US
Well that's a decent point.
>>76683301
And that's why we should have used tariffs on their goods to pressure them to modernize their regulations.
We need a free trade club, where all the member nations have similar human rights, workers rights, and environmental protection laws. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but meet a minimum requirement. Everyone in the club who meets the requirement enjoys free access to the other members markets. Everyone outside the club gets tariffs on their goods, except on important natural resources.
Instead we created a situation where the developed world has to either lose their jobs to countries that ignore those basic regulations, or they lower their standard of living in order to keep those jobs from moving.
>>76682246
All currency that goes out, comes back in. That is why free trade's comparative advantage inevitably benefits you in the long-run, not the short-run.
>>76678779
Protectionism. We need to rebuild our gutted manufacturing sector at all costs.
Protectionism will kill markets domestically. As much as I want to love it, we are too far gone financially to try and revert to Protectionism. The only way it could work is if the world went through a huge, unified, anti-globalist capitalist shitfit.
>>76685508
That currency is then used to purchase our debt, our land, or our companies. So we end up selling out our country for cheap goods.
Protectionism, of course.
If you're for free trade and you live in a "first world" country, ask yourself what the point of an economy is.
>>76685965
you're an idiot, impossible to starve we can do anything.
>>76685958
But when we go through with Protectionism, we aren't really doing anything good longterm and shortterm. Some jobs may come back, but ultimately, they will still leave the country due to the regulations here (due to Protectionism) and other things like the cost of living. Free Trade and Globalization is shit but doing anything to really alter this will fuck our shit for decades.
>>76685966
That's an issue with government spending and the welfare state, we shouldn't be running deficits.
>>76686173
>fuck our shit
>protecting industry and employing locals in production
what exact benefit is free trade achieving other than losing domestic factories?
I'm not against free trade as I am against the current atmosphere in which trade deals are trying to promote free trade. The reason it's good is that it promotes competition internationally. It's what makes domestic goods competitive, right? Two American companies have to make goods that are cheaper without sacrificing quality to attract customers, and the consumers benefit.
The current problem is that America effectively cannot compete. We have a higher minimum wage, a higher working age, and a lower poverty rate. There is no competition. And it's hypocritical to say that the U.S. has moral standards, therefor we will not allow children to work for $1 a day. But if it's not our children, then give me those new Nike's!
I'm not saying an equalizing tariff wouldn't shock the economy majorly. It will. But why do we need to trade with Europe? Why do we need Mexico? Other people will hurt from this too. It will halt the gears. And while tariffs brought on the great depression, the U.S. had 80 solid years of growth afterward.
>>76685978
>ask yourself what the point of an economy is
To allocate resources effectively, which can't be truly done under protectionism.
Instead of protectionism, we should focus on fair trade - that means reciprocating tarrifs and regulations on imports that the target country imposes, reducing/eliminating corporate taxes to make it lucrative to invest at home, and reducing regulations.
>>76686189
You only responded to the debt part of my comment. What about our land and our companies that get bought by foreigners by that currency coming back in?
>>76682084
Good post Panamabro
>>76680529
http://buchanan.org/blog/the-isolationist-myth-165
"free trade" may be overall more beneficial but only for the jews and at the expense of the people of the nation
>>76685978
If you're for protectionism, it's because you're a leech and not a job creator. And you're not worthy of having an opinion.
>>76683776
>corrupt American unions, everything else about it has been shit
Public Sector Unions are the ones that are shit since they can only be appeased through raising taxes on the citizens. Private Sector Unions like UAW, AFL-CIO, etc. are absolutely based. Without the Labor movement, we would be living in squalor.
>>76678779
Trade deals where its equal for both sides. NAFTA and TPP are not like that
China has restrictions on our imports but not on their exports.
Sadly we do not live in a world where there are no government trade deals and governments using trade barriers
>>76686446
Free trade inevitably balances itself out, just like China's GDP growth has been insane over the last decade, if China becomes the superpower and starts investing in our industries, then we will catch back up to them. Free trade certainly balances the two countries.
>>76682499
Look at that source. No shit that if you target a specific economic school you can find whatever you like.
>>76678779
I'm for whatever the jews are advocating against.
>>76686892
free trade = bad for domestic people good for globalist profiteers
>>76686351
>>protecting industry and employing locals in production
That is a catch-all solution which no longer applies to the extremely diverse American economy. Employing locals in production will mean absurdly expensive production costs domestically and it will cause companies to jump ship or automate as much as possible, leaving the laborer out. Furthermore, it will lead to monopolies being held on certain industries, thus limiting technological innovation and growth and choke the consumer. For example, the vertical integration system practiced by Carnegie crushed the Steel Industry under his boot and systematically treated his workers like shit because he was only really competitive at home and there was no Government regulation.
>>76687026
and of course it's called "Free" Trade
>>76687026
Just as G-d intended
A more pragmatic approach. Free trade with Australia, protectionism with china. So on and so forth. No titanic free trade agreements that involve more than 3 countries. Every country should be dealt with depending on realpolitik and that nation's current economic status and the status of the american workers.
>>76678779
I'm all for wal-mart driving local businesses bankrupt, sending the money out of state to china, and the eventually shutting the store down leaving everyone in the area broke with little local economic opportunity.
-Jew Goldman
>>76681034
thats because a state is still involved, not really a free market these days
>>76686675
stealth rare!
>>76679030
Globalist economists you mean
Anyone with half a brain knows what's good for the globalist elite is usually bad and removing all borders on the movement of money means globalist foreign billionaires come buy everything up and then buy your government and make it a globalist puppet. Look at the politics and economics of Canada and you'll see the shit were in all started after we let foreigners run rampant with their money in our country and saw no benefit
After WW2 Canada was:
>almost 3rd largest manufacturer behind the US and Britain
>the top innovator in aircraft(read: Avro Company)
>a magnet for immigrants looking to work for a better life and bringing skills
>3rd largest car manufacturer
>one of the most democratic governments to ever exist
>population reaps the benifit of nations wealth
>all with 1/3 the population we have now
After 1956-present and start of globalist world economy:
>manufacturing leaves and we start exporting cheap resources
>elections become basically rigged
>foreigners get most of countries wealth
>massive brain drain
>import mass amounts of welfare seeking shitskins
>citizens get less of nations wealth to the point they can't even buy houses
>inferior cheap foreign manufactured products always breaking
>mass degenerization of our people
>economy becomes dependent soely on oil
>dollar is dropping to at most 0.55$US
>country is heading for another Great Depression
>yet we still send Africans mudshits and Israel billions in "aid"
>national economy run by some world bank
Nationalist economies that benifit the nation and its people over the rest of the world will always be superior. The only problem is the people will be in control not the globalist elite
>>76679746
>slave like wages
It's too damn bad you yanks abolished slavery. Now you have niggers fucking everything up and China is taking your economy through slave wages
Repeal the 13th amendment, put the nigs back to work in industry this time and we'll see how much China can compete
>>76681577
Which wasn't bad at all. The stock market crash caused a recession which was turned into a depression because government passed laws to keep prices and wages artificially high
The only thing the smoot hawley did was prevent access to cheaper foreign goods which were only cheaper in the first place because American goods prices were kept high artificially by government action
>>76678779
Depends on when. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other. Usually some mix, with the ratio going back and forth depending on circumstances.
It makes no sense to be wedded to an ideology forever regardless of what happens. You have to be flexible. Don know this.
I'm very for free trade, but I'm even more for living in a civilized white country and not Brazil.
So I'll vote for Trump any day gladly.
>>76686675
What's it like living in a toothpaste meme country?
>>76681756
Nothing stimulates an economy like war. Had the west not been at war in the Mideast the 2008 crash would become a Great Depression 2.0
If all countries had total nuclear disarmament a ww3 would be a good thing to have. The world is overpopulated and the economy is on its ass. Wars kill and nothing stimulated western economies like ww2 did
Before you say anything most of those deaths would just be shitskins and Russians anyway
>>76680340
Last time i checked free trade is what caused the holocaust stupid
>>76678779
Protectionism against 3rd world countries. If the country isn't close to the same level of development as your own then you shouldn't have a free trade agreement with them. It ruins both countries, because it kills industry in the more developed country since it's cheaper in the less developed country, but it also destroys the less developed country through poor environmental protection, sweatshop conditions, and a general lack of fucks given about employee health. It's all done entirely for the profit of large companies.
>>76680094
He's basically saying it's like math, not that it's made up.
>>76683068
This
Most free trade disadvantages national business while putting more power and money in pockets of globalist corporations with no loyalty but to power and control
>>76683301
Some of our enviro regulations and especially diversity rights bullshit does go too far though like I don't want to have to hire fucking fags over people who are far more mentally stable and far better candidates
If God actually existed, and capitalism was a human being, then it would be in the deepest depths of hell....torturing the devil for being so soft on humans.
>>76691166
That's the opposite of what he's saying. He's saying its like a religion, based on faith.
You realize math is based on proofs, right?
At the foundation of praxeology are a priori assumptions that cannot be questioned in order for the models to theoretically work. Which is why they don't work in reality.
>>76683928
>>76683573
>>76683288
>>76679801
>tulip crash
>tulips
Could someone please explain how the hell a whole economy crashes over FUCKING TULIPS
>>76685235
Reminds me of critical theory.
>>76678779
Protectionism, because if you become self sufficient you become rich
>>76680640
>>76680013
Your retarded
>>76680094
>not austrian
>economics
Cant make dis shit up
>>76691891
See Vancouver housing market. Basically they became worth ridiculous amounts because people say they are worth it, and people will actually pay it. When people finally realize they're all idiots and decide not to pay insane amounts for things then the market crashes.
>>76689219
>France
Stealth new
>>76686675
>this
>>76687218
Then what the fuck do the locals do? 11$/hr shit service jobs?
Service based jobs is a meme. Look at fucking Cuckada if you want to seem how great a country with few real jobs that you have to move halfway across the country for works out
>>76691160
>It ruins both countries
It depends on the country really. China isn't great, but they are way better off now than they were a few decades ago. I believe they have the most rapidly expanding middle class in the world.
>>76692656
Perhaps, but look at their factories and lower class. They work 12 hour days 6 days a week for pennies an hour. If the factory catches fire, then there is a decent chance they'll all burn inside of it, if they have been fed enough to have the energy to run away. The environmental damage is massive.
