Trump

[natsb88]

Protectionism is just a way to water down and rationalize authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is an enemy of liberty.

Trump from three years ago: Snowden is a traitor, we should make an example of him, we used to execute people like this. "Unless the retribution is swift and really strong, you're going to have other people coming out with more information than he's got."



Trump last week (and numerous times before): try American citizens suspected of terror involvement in military tribunals at Guantanamo instead of the constitutional court system.



Trump a few months ago: boycott Apple, force them to build backdoors for government use.



Trump last year: close up the internet, mocks people who cite free speech.



The government is going to pay for universal healthcare. Raise taxes. Identifies as a democrat. Hates the concept of guns. Republicans are too far right. Pro-abortion. Hillary Clinton the best qualified to make nuclear deal with Iran. Impressed by and likes Nancy Pelosi. Obama is a great guy who knows what we need. Hillary & Bill are great friends. Economy does better under democrats than republicans. Eminent domain is a wonderful thing. On immigration in 2013: we can't just throw people out.



So we compromise and accept Trump's authoritarianism because his protectionist flavor isn't quite as bad as Hillary's globalist flavor? That's an awful lot of baggage to ignore/excuse/rationalize just to vote for the lesser of two evils. Even the things that are "good" about Trump now were not positions he held prior to the start of this presidential run. I don't know what else I can do to demonstrate that his "refreshing" position on immigration is a total fabrication, a political prop. Same with guns. And "small government."

The GOP is far from perfect. There have been times I would have loved to see it crash and burn. But the argument people make about Hillary doing irreversible damage is exactly what I see Trump doing to conservative politics. If a liberal big-government authoritarian like Trump wins the presidency on the GOP ticket, there will be nothing close to a true conservative major party candidate for many many years to come. Maybe melding more with the democrats will open up the door for a stronger third party / independent run. I dunno. I just know Trump is not a good direction for the "conservative" party, if we wish to maintain even an illusion of choice between democrats and republicans going forward.

[natsb88]

All protectionism is rooted in the mistaken presumption not only that existing, domestic producers have a moral right – enforceable by the state – to the patronage of domestic consumers, but also that no future domestic producers have such a right as against current domestic producers. This right, were it real, implies that consumers exist to please existing domestic producers; it implies that continued or expanded production of that which is currently produced domestically is the end, while consumption is only the means of encouraging such production.

Only the widespread, if unthinking, acceptance of this presumption gives credence to the demands of domestic producers that some “unfair” practice by a foreign rival or foreign government justifies the imposition by the home government of punitive taxes on domestic consumers who purchase imports. Only a widely shared, if seldom articulated, belief that current domestic producers have a right to some minimum portion of domestic-consumers’ incomes explains the nodding of the heads of many people of all political persuasions when they hear some politician or pundit or preacher demonize foreign producers for selling wares to domestic citizens.

http://cafehayek.com/2016/05/protectionism-2.html

If tariffs and restraints on trade are good for a country, then why not indeed for a state or region? The principle is precisely the same. In America’s first great depression, the Panic of 1819, Detroit was a tiny frontier town of only a few hundred people. Yet protectionist cries arose—fortunately not fulfilled—to prohibit all “imports” from outside of Detroit, and citizens were exhorted to “buy only Detroit.” If this nonsense had been put into effect, general starvation and death would have ended all other economic problems for Detroiters.

So why not restrict and even prohibit trade, i.e. “imports,” into a city, or a neighborhood, or even on a block, or, to boil it down to its logical conclusion, to one family? Why shouldn’t the Jones family issue a decree that from now on, no member of the family can buy any goods or services produced outside the family house? Starvation would quickly wipe out this ludicrous drive for self-sufficiency.

And yet we must realize that this absurdity is inherent in the logic of protectionism. Standard protectionism is just as preposterous, but the rhetoric of nationalism and national boundaries has been able to obscure this vital fact.

The upshot is that protectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world of self-sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade—such as protectionism—cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

https://austrianeconomicsandliberty.blo ... on-of.html

In this way, protectionist policies inevitably lead to conflict and the destruction of human life and welfare. In fact, Mises even hints that government policies aiming to control the movement and employment of individuals suffer from the same problems socialist central planning does (1919, p. 85). At the same time, entrepreneurship and the division of labor are the foundations of a rational social order, and neither is possible without free labor markets.

The main threat facing society then is illiberal ideology, and the only solution to this “principle of violence” is to develop a consistent liberal philosophy to serve as the basis for a peaceful society (1951, p. 49).

Mises believed that any society that rejected the values of liberalism was doomed. In an age of nationalism, protectionism, and war, it’s easy to see what he meant.

https://mises.org/library/mises-protect ... mmigration

The last piece referring, of course, to classic liberalism, not modern democratic party liberalism.

TL;DR: protectionism = cronyism

[IdahoCopper]

What if everyone wrote in their own name when voting for president?

[Thogey]

What if everyone wrote in their own name when voting for president?

Hernandez would win california texas, new mexico and arizona.

[68Camaro]

Spanking children can be constructively corrective or brutally violent, depending on how it is applied. The left (stupidly) puts both in the same bucket and rejects it all.

Protectionism is no different. I reject the "blah-blah-blah it's bad" nonsense of the academics and libertarians (even, gasp, Mises), when the protectionism is being constructively applied to level an un level playing field. RIght or wrong, due to our environmental and diversity zealots, US manufacturing is operating on a largely un-level field. Not that some of the controls aren't warranted, but they've gone far too far. Companies have to implement overly restrictive rules on "safety" and ESH, they are prevented from hiring the best workers and prevented from firing the worst workers. Etc, etc. Meanwhile China is free to devastate their environment and treat their workers worse than we treat farm animals.

Protectionism has a place at the table of tools; the key is implementing it correctly.

[Treetop]

I still cant find info on a nation that built up a middle class without protectionism. The bulk of the founders of this nation were protectionists of course, are you arguing they were anti liberty?

The upshot is that protectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world of self-sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade—such as protectionism—cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

Funny point about the farmers, it was the farmers of the south who wanted free trade in the past. Most of the Us supported protectionist ideas up until ww2, when our dollars role as reserve currency changed the whole game for us and the west. Our industries paid much better then their european counterparts. The point on prosperity doesnt appear true at all. Nations who use protectionist policy build wealth, those who dont end up generally selling low level stuff like raw materials and ore. There are examples that mirror the part about supporting inefficient producers but much more common is letting local industry and jobs build up and frankly a middle class.

Mostly this is nonsense that you are linking. Im still looking and havent found ONE country that built up a middle class without protectionism. Im sure some exist I havent found them though. I can however list dozens that built up a middle class with it, very counter to the idea that it doesnt build wealth. We need tens of millions of jobs if we want to end the welfare class without them just starving and rioting in the streets. magical thinking wont make these jobs appear.

[knibloe]

Spanking children can be constructively corrective or brutally violent, depending on how it is applied. The left (stupidly) puts both in the same bucket and rejects it all.

Protectionism is no different. I reject the "blah-blah-blah it's bad" nonsense of the academics and libertarians (even, gasp, Mises), when the protectionism is being constructively applied to level an un level playing field. RIght or wrong, due to our environmental and diversity zealots, US manufacturing is operating on a largely un-level field. Not that some of the controls aren't warranted, but they've gone far too far. Companies have to implement overly restrictive rules on "safety" and ESH, they are prevented from hiring the best workers and prevented from firing the worst workers. Etc, etc. Meanwhile China is free to devastate their environment and treat their workers worse than we treat farm animals.

Protectionism has a place at the table of tools; the key is implementing it correctly.

+1

[Treetop]

http://www.infowars.com/assange-new-hil ... ches-fire/

A short article and video on the link with julian assange the wikileaks guy. He describes a bit more about what he claims to have on hillary clinton. Says it will be a game changer if it sweeps the media.

lol been awhile since I was at infowars. Found this on drudge. Apparently infowars REALLY likes trump.

Elsewhere in the interview, Assange vowed that the information would be released before November 8 and that there was “thousands of pages of material” which would be released in staged batches.

“People have a right to understand who it is they’re electing,” said Assange, adding that the information comprised of “a variety of different types of documents, from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

[natsb88]

lol been awhile since I was at infowars. Found this on drudge. Apparently infowars REALLY likes trump.

Yes they do. Another reason to NOT like Trump in my eyes. I'm not big on "controlled opposition" conspiracy theories, but if ever there was some, it would look exactly like Infowars, and they have been pushing Trump hard.

[Treetop]

lol, Id still go trump even if inforwars is controlled opposition. Hillary sold freaking policy through the state department among 100 other reasons I dislike her drastically more then trump. If we are playing guilt by association hillary still looses for me as the likes of soros we now know can write her emails she acts on, and all the other elitists looking out more for themselves then our nations future. Have you been following the info hacked from soros related sources? Not many sources covering it, but the fact such a guy can write hillary and she acts is terrifying.

[Treetop]

Speaking of conspiracy theories. Id bet sources within our own government are the source of all these recent leaks. The level of hillaries corruption far surpasses anything before it that is public.

[natsb88]

I also dislike Hillary more than Trump. That doesn't make me want to vote for Trump.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the Soros stuff isn't being covered. The mainstream media is largely an extension of the democratic party.

[Treetop]

Ehhh Id prefer to keep the second amendment myself. As well as the other intrusions on liberty left leaning judges have shown a proclivity to vote for when given the chance. We already discussed and disagree on protectionism and other things. I certainly dont fault a vote for a third party, Ive always done it up until now myself but I see this election as much different. Id also agree with what youve said in the past that trump is an authoritarian, but I like his brand eons better then hillaries being that Id still have options. The way I interpret our nations long term issues Trump deserves my vote more then any currently running third party candidates. We will actually have a country to save if the real liberty movement ever grows wings.

Ive still been reading alot on it, can find any nation that built a middle class without protectionism. Some may exist that I didnt look into yet but not many if any.

[johnbrickner]

"Snowden is a traitor, we should make an example of him, we . . ." (Trump said).

There have been times I would have loved to see it crash and burn . . .

. . . if we wish to maintain even an illusion of choice between democrats and republicans going forward.

Snowden is a National Hero. We should put his face on a coin. A real leader would stop the whole states quarters etc. and president dollars and put the face of every significant whistle blower on obverse of them and what whistle they blew on the back. Our country needs modern contemporary heroes who are walking-the-walk and putting their lives on the line for our "save" American values and beliefs!

I'm sorry but the "god like" (it's how we treat them) athletes we put on pedestals and worship with our "fan"atic behaviors are not heroes. They are well paid professionals who entertain us. There are better role models for our youth to emulate than many of them.

I would love nothing better than to see our whole two party political system crash and burn. This would force a change to a better form of representation than the illusion of democracy and choice we have today. There is no better example of a need for change than the presidential election [for Hillary and Trump (to keep it on topic)] we have been experiencing at this very time of our lives. While I would consider it far and away the worst I've seen, it's still just a continuation of the circus parade I've been watching my entire life.

Down with the Bloody Big Heads!

[Treetop]

The more I think on it Im not convinced failure of our current two party system would even help at all. Id expect neo communism or whatever we choose to call it to then be the dominate party based on where the nations youth seem to want to take things. Hard to tell what the right side would re organize into, but I dont think it would be anywhere close to ideal.

Im also not convinced we can even do better then trump. I say this because of my interpretation of the state of our electorate. Baffled so many think trump is among the worst weve seen when on several major issues hes better then I expected to see have a chance until our system resets, which personally I think is a given but could be wrong on that. Sure hes an authoritarian but so is anyone else who has even a tiniest of chances to win. He addresses all the main components of culture, borders, defense and jobs/wealth. Believe whatever you like but protectionism is the clear winner over free trade when other nations are willing to work for enough to eat and paper shoes, as well as not caring if their water is drinkable at all and the rest. (if you think Im wrong on this last point please help me find a nation or two that built a middle class without protectionism so I can study it, I cant find any if they exist)

Liberty movement? Pffft youll be exceedingly lucky to keep the self determination you have now unless there is a major paradigm shift among our youth. Although they will vote to let us all use our favorite drugs as they age. Its a brave new world.

All that said I do think the liberty movement has hope AFTER we fall on our faces as a nation. I see the undertones for it all over but the are buried under a mountain of twisted ideals imo. The larger the middle class is when our game of musical chairs is over the more likely I expect it will be that people valuing liberty again becomes common.

[natsb88]

Libertarian Johnson beats Trump among economists

First, the numbers. In a new poll from the National Association of Business Economics (NABE), asking which presidential candidate would do the best job managing the American economy, 55 percent choose Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, 15 percent chose Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and 14 percent chose Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The results are interesting for several reasons. The National Association of Business Economics has a strongly pro-business viewpoint. It is not a bastion of liberal or populist economists. It is a mild surprise that Clinton would be so comparatively popular with this group, but it is a shocker that libertarian Gary Johnson would be seen by more of these economists as a better manager of the national economy than Trump.

Why does Johnson outperform Trump among these economists?

Most importantly on the positive side, Johnson represents a clear and coherent economic and political philosophy that conservative and libertarian economists can understand and support if they choose. On the negative side, Trump has no coherent organizing economic philosophy, spent decades acting like and supporting traditional liberal Democrats, has repeatedly shifted his positions on major issues and has little more trust from economists than he has earned among the general electorate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/p ... rump-among

[Treetop]

LOL that is honestly pretty funny. They list trump supporting democrats as a reason those economists supported johnson over trump, yet hillary fared better and shes a liberal dem. They mention flipflopping and one of the things trump never flipflopped on is his stance on trade policies and easing regulations. (unless it happened before he ran on that issue in 2000). Hillary flipflopped on a wide range of issues especially if you donate or hire her husband, and doesnt even offer much in the way of economic policy besides more taxes and continuing the path we are on which will only lead to failure. The current paradigm cannot be sustained. Hillary flipflopped on NAFTA a few times, and TPP, the TPP literally erodes national sovereignty directly making us beholden to international courts. Do these same economists like those at the IMF insist protectionism is bad? Yet you cannot build a middle class without it. (again if anyone can find a country that built a middle class without protectionism Id love to know which one so I can study it, it would be the extreme minority if such nations exist) Heard hillary in a speech say how great it was bush and obama gave those trillions to the to big to fail banks, and obamas shovel ready projects building jobs.

In my own field Im constantly told by "experts" who have degrees in related fields that I couldnt possibly be doing what I am in my back yard. I am derided an told I am simple minded things dont work like that, lol except they do.

[scyther]

lol been awhile since I was at infowars. Found this on drudge. Apparently infowars REALLY likes trump.

Yes they do. Another reason to NOT like Trump in my eyes. I'm not big on "controlled opposition" conspiracy theories, but if ever there was some, it would look exactly like Infowars, and they have been pushing Trump hard.

How do you feel about Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneaux? They're both hardcore libertarians who, for some reason, have fallen hard for Trump.

I find libertarian support for Trump baffling. He's significantly farther from being a Libertarian than Mitt Romney was, and they all (me included at the time) hated him. He also made fun of Ron Paul back in 2011, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. I'm thinking of voting for Darrell Castle if he's on the ballot in my state. Seems better than Johnson, and I'm liking Trump less all the time.

[natsb88]

How do you feel about Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneaux? They're both hardcore libertarians who, for some reason, have fallen hard for Trump.

I am not very familiar with Molyneaux. I think Rockwell, like one of my "libertarian" friends, has tunnel vision on Trump's less interventionist foreign policy, and is making excuses for / turning a blind eye to all of Trump's other decidedly anti-libertarian stances because they are so concerned about Hillary starting WWIII. I don't think single-issue voting is a good idea. Voting for Trump isn't just an anti-war vote, it also means endorsing his support for universal healthcare, an assault weapons ban, spying on US citizens, censoring free speech, and all of his other baggage. The GOP will not view a Trump vote as anti-war, but pro-everything-he-stands-for. If Trump wins (very doubtful at this point) the GOP will see what "works" and be sure to deliver more (garbage candidates) in the future.

Lew may be smitten by Trump, but not all of his contributors have wandered off the reservation.

Trump is Wrong About Trade
By James Ostrowski

I am not unsympathetic to the Trump Movement as I too am a populist. That said, Trump is wrong about trade. Trump is the latest and loudest to tap into a nearly ineradicable strain of economic fallacy known as protectionism. Protectionism is, as Albert Jay Nock accurately stated, “the robbery of the domestic consumer by the domestic manufacturer.” The protectionist wants to use state violence to prevent people from making deals with manufacturers and retailers from outside the United States who sell products that are cheaper and/or better than those produced domestically. If the trade that is banned or discouraged by high tariffs involves a consumer good, the protectionist has obviously made that person poorer by forcing him to buy a more expensive or lower quality good. If the banned transaction involves a capital good, then the protectionist has weakened a domestic manufacturer by costing that firm revenue, resulting in lower investment and decreased employment.

In a fiat currency economy such as we have, dollars spent abroad must come back to the U. S. economy anyway in the form of purchases of goods, services, real estate or bonds. Thus, the protectionist also thwarts those generally beneficial transactions. I am indebted to Milton Freidman for this point. If on the other hand, those dollars sent abroad are buried or burned, then the failure to return them simply means that Americans become wealthier as they have sent mere pieces of paper abroad in exchange for valuable goods. The analysis would be different perhaps in a gold standard economy but we do not have one so it’s academic.

Protectionism also harms American firms and workers by encouraging the rest of the world to construct trade barriers against us, either to retaliate against us or merely to ape our economic illogic. The great historical example is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that contributed to the severity and length of the Great Depression.

Protectionism also encourages international conflict and increases the likelihood of war. The statement attributed to Bastiat makes the point: “if goods can’t cross borders, troops will.” In a protectionist world where nations cannot easily sell their products in territories, they do not control, many will draw the logical, if evil, the conclusion that they need to conquer more territory to expand their markets.

Protectionism, by reducing economic opportunities in poorer countries, causes economic distress and creates a powerful incentive to leave one’s ancient homeland and engage in often dangerous ventures to sneak illegally into the United States. Ironically, protectionists are often the harshest opponents of illegal immigration. Regardless of one’s views on immigration, a policy which encourages the mass movement of peoples away from their native lands out of sheer economic desperation is not to be encouraged.

Yet another cost of protectionism, rarely noted, is its sheer out of pocket cost. Protectionism wastes many tens of billions of dollars in enforcement costs, taxes on foreign goods, and increased prices for domestic goods. I have never heard a protectionist address this major problem for their argument. It is hard to see how they could.

It’s worth noting that, in private life or in business, the protectionist buys the cheapest goods he can from wherever. I would bet that at least half of the shoppers at Walmart are strict protectionists in politics. Thus, protectionists want to make their own, current, rational behavior illegal!

More on LewRockwell.com

I find libertarian support for Trump baffling. He's significantly farther from being a Libertarian than Mitt Romney was, and they all (me included at the time) hated him. He also made fun of Ron Paul back in 2011, which everyone seems to have forgotten about.

At least from my experience on social media, a lot of the self-proclaimed "libertarians" who are supporting Trump only became "libertarians" for one or two Ron Paul campaign cycles and are now desperate to crawl back to a major party candidate for fear of "wasting their vote." A handful of more prominent figures like Rockwell have fallen and bumped their heads, but the libertarian support for Trump seems to be overblown and mostly from relatively new fair-weather libertarians and single-issue anti-war voters.

I'm thinking of voting for Darrell Castle if he's on the ballot in my state. Seems better than Johnson, and I'm liking Trump less all the time.

I like Castle on the issues, better than Johnson in some cases. I think at times Castle puts too much emphasis on religion, but that's pretty minor. However I think a vote for Johnson will have more impact. The LP has a better established infrastructure and could gain a lot this year in terms of ballot access, debate access, and funding. They are on the cusp so-to-speak, where the Constitution Party is barely on the radar. Johnson is not my ideal candidate but he's a huge step in the right direction and a vote for the LP candidate this year is more than just a vote for Gary. I do not have a problem with Castle or voting for Castle, I just think there is more to gain by supporting Johnson this time around.

[Treetop]

How do you feel about Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneaux? They're both hardcore libertarians who, for some reason, have fallen hard for Trump.

I am not very familiar with Molyneaux. I think Rockwell, like one of my "libertarian" friends, has tunnel vision on Trump's less interventionist foreign policy, and is making excuses for / turning a blind eye to all of Trump's other decidedly anti-libertarian stances because they are so concerned about Hillary starting WWIII. I don't think single-issue voting is a good idea. Voting for Trump isn't just an anti-war vote, it also means endorsing his support for universal healthcare, an assault weapons ban, spying on US citizens, censoring free speech, and all of his other baggage. The GOP will not view a Trump vote as anti-war, but pro-everything-he-stands-for. If Trump wins (very doubtful at this point) the GOP will see what "works" and be sure to deliver more (garbage candidates) in the future.

Funny romney was brought into this. Trump supported an assault weapons ban in the past but no longer does. Romney supported permanently extending an assault weapons ban in mass when he was gov, the brady bill and other things. Obamacare is also similar to the romney care bill, trump no longer supports universal healthcare. Romney also wanted to expand the patriot act. Saying “we need tools when war is waged domestically." Actually just went over romneys stances and only on free trade does he come off as more of a libertarian then trump, and libertarians are simply wrong on that. They would rather stick to ideals then ensure a sustainable middle class. Trump is more libertarian on the drug war then romney though. Trump stances support the actual stats on that. So not sure how romney would be seen as more libertarian at all. But to each their own.

[natsb88]

Ive still been reading alot on it, can find any nation that built a middle class without protectionism. Some may exist that I didnt look into yet but not many if any.

First, you are suffering from confirmation bias. Second, you are asking me to prove a negative. Third, the examples you have cited for successful protectionism are all countries with much larger government (relative to the economy and population) than what the US is supposed to have. The US was founded to get away from controlling government and to let the free market work. Why would we want to mimic the overbearing federal policies of countries we are not supposed to be like?

The idea that tariffs on Chinese goods = jobs coming back from China is way oversimplified. There are far more consequences than that, and the net result is negative for everybody except the government collecting the fees.

You talk about the US living beyond its means and piling up debt. That is absolutely a problem. But protectionism is just another mechanism to further manipulate the market to uphold that unsustainable lifestyle (and it only works for a short time at that). Just like bailing out the banks, bailing out the automakers, and taking out tens of trillions in federal debt, it is only a way to kick the can down the road. It is artificial. It is short-term thinking with long-term consequences. The markets must be allowed to function naturally to get back to a sustainable spending level and lifestyle. That means global markets. And yes, that means a painful period of correction where we face the consequences of decades of unsustainable spending. But the further we push it down the road, the harder we will fall. It seems like maybe there is a generational difference in perspective here. I can see where Trump's protectionism could be appealing if you are only concerned about the economy for the next 15-20 years. But for me thinking about the next 40-50 years, I'd rather go through a recoverable depression now, than an unrecoverable meltdown in 2050.

[Treetop]

First, you are suffering from confirmation bias.

LOL nope. When I study it I try to find ways to prove myself wrong not right.

Second, you are asking me to prove a negative.

Not really, if such a nation exists then one could argue free trade can work. I cant find one and I keep looking. Where is proof that free trade works? Rather then just ideal based arguments? I can shot obvious holes in all the arguments Ive found thus far online that make this case.

Third, the examples you have cited for successful protectionism are all countries with much larger government (relative to the economy and population) than what the US is supposed to have. The US was founded to get away from controlling government and to let the free market work. Why would we want to mimic the overbearing federal policies of countries we are not supposed to be like?

Nope, completely false. We used the same type of protectionism as we moved into the industrial revolution. THIS nation had protectionism of the nature I value most of its history. Almost all the founders of this nation were protectionists. We abandoned it in the 30s or so and soon after we had the dollar as global reserve which greatly changed things. Also after ww2 we got a massive boost since we were the biggest industrial power still standing and the wealth this generated and the later inflation of it through various means still carries the US and the western world in many ways. We can never get back to that place, the world market is forever changed but we could retain a middle class in the face of it if we tried.

The idea that tariffs on Chinese goods = jobs coming back from China is way oversimplified. There are far more consequences than that, and the net result is negative for everybody except the government collecting the fees.

Of course it is more complex then that, but we cannot continue to compete with slaves and not expect to eventually meet them in the middle in regards to wealth. Protectionism adjusted over time is the best chance we have at retaining a middle class.

You talk about the US living beyond its means and piling up debt. That is absolutely a problem. But protectionism is just another mechanism to further manipulate the market to uphold that unsustainable lifestyle (and it only works for a short time at that). Just like bailing out the banks, bailing out the automakers, and taking out tens of trillions in federal debt, it is only a way to kick the can down the road. It is artificial. It is short-term thinking with long-term consequences.

Nope Im thinking of the longterm here. We ALREADY would be drastically poorer as a nation without having inflated our economy with debt spending, and the increased money supply from expanded fractional reserve banking. The CURRENT level of wealth we have as a nation and size of our middle class is artificial. We need jobs and we need them quick. We need those jobs to be sustained in a global marketplace were our competitors dont care if they can drink the water and only expect enough money for very basic lifestyles.

The markets must be allowed to function naturally to get back to a sustainable spending level and lifestyle. That means global markets. And yes, that means a painful period of correction where we face the consequences of decades of unsustainable spending. But the further we push it down the road, the harder we will fall. It seems like maybe there is a generational difference in perspective here. I can see where Trump's protectionism could be appealing if you are only concerned about the economy for the next 15-20 years. But for me thinking about the next 40-50 years, I'd rather go through a recoverable depression now, than an unrecoverable meltdown in 2050.

Disagree entirely, free trade can only work for the short sighted person, whereas ensuring we can retain jobs is the longterm view. It is hard to estimate how much having reserve currency, debt spending and expanded unsustainable fractional reserve banking has already inflated our lifestyles, but it is considerable and in the long term WILL fade away. From that new base we also stand to loose even more production and more of our middle class. A considerable amount more in fact. Only jobs that you cannot do elsewhere will be safe and there will be a much higher number of skilled people seeking said jobs so wages even there will come down.

[natsb88]

Not really, if such a nation exists then one could argue free trade can work. I cant find one and I keep looking. Where is proof that free trade works? Rather then just ideal based arguments? I can shot obvious holes in all the arguments Ive found thus far online that make this case.

We've never had truly free trade / free markets in the modern global economy so of course you're not going to find the nice tidy example of "global free trade working" you are asking for. That's like saying, "I can't find any examples of nuclear fusion powering countries in the past, so we should stick to coal and not try anything else." That's not an argument at all. We already have protectionist policies and they aren't working. We already have corporatist trade agreements disguised as "free trade" agreements and they aren't working either. We need to eliminate these barriers to free trade, not build more. Trump and his supporters sure do like building walls, physical and socioeconomic. But they are antiquated and a false sense of security.

I can, however, give you a prime modern example of protectionist policy failing miserably. Japan from the second half of the twentieth century to today. Very high tariffs, caps on imports, and a grand reluctance to open up to free trade. They are the second largest developed economy and in the top five in several manufacturing categories. They also have the highest ratio of public debt to GDP in the world and the Bank of Japan is paying (charging) negative interest rates. They have very strict immigration policy, and an aging and declining population that is retiring in droves without enough new taxpayers to fund their obligations. Japan is on the path to a world of hurt, and is a perfect example of how Trump-like protectionism plays out for a developed country in the long term.

We ALREADY would be drastically poorer as a nation without having inflated our economy with debt spending, and the increased money supply from expanded fractional reserve banking. The CURRENT level of wealth we have as a nation and size of our middle class is artificial.

Agreed. But protectionist policies will only make this worse. Tariffs are nothing but artificial inflation, with the government pocketing the lost buying power. The SAME as inflationary money printing. Raising prices so the government can spend more. Politicians try to trick you into seeing it backwards, but that's all tariffs are.

Fun fact: you are siding with Karl Marx on this issue. I'm siding with Friedman, Mises, and Rothbard.

We need jobs and we need them quick.

The government cannot create sustainable jobs. Additional government interference in the market cannot create sustainable jobs. You are believing a politician who says he will "create jobs." You know better than that.

Disagree entirely, free trade can only work for the short sighted person, whereas ensuring we can retain jobs is the longterm view. It is hard to estimate how much having reserve currency, debt spending and expanded unsustainable fractional reserve banking has already inflated our lifestyles, but it is considerable and in the long term WILL fade away. From that new base we also stand to loose even more production and more of our middle class. A considerable amount more in fact. Only jobs that you cannot do elsewhere will be safe and there will be a much higher number of skilled people seeking said jobs so wages even there will come down.

Your first thought completely contradicts the rest of that paragraph. We're in the economic mess we're in precisely because of government interference in the markets and expanding protectionism is just doubling down on government interference in the markets. It fails. It always does. If we want a sustainable economy, we have reduce government interference in the markets, not increase it. The answer to just about every government-created problem is less government, not more.

I found this video from 1980 after I wrote everything above. In it Friedman talks about the Japanese protectionist policies I mentioned above, and 36 years later they are ultimately playing out just how he warned.

[Treetop]

We've never had truly free trade / free markets in the modern global economy so of course you're not going to find the nice tidy example of "global free trade working" you are asking for. That's like saying, "I can't find any examples of nuclear fusion powering countries in the past, so we should stick to coal and not try anything else." That's not an argument at all. We already have protectionist policies and they aren't working. We already have corporatist trade agreements disguised as "free trade" agreements and they aren't working either. We need to eliminate these barriers to free trade, not build more. Trump and his supporters sure do like building walls, physical and socioeconomic. But they are antiquated and a false sense of security.

I can list dozens examples of modern freetrade crushing the third world or bleeding out the middle class of several nations including our own.

I can, however, give you a prime modern example of protectionist policy failing miserably. Japan from the second half of the twentieth century to today. Very high tariffs, caps on imports, and a grand reluctance to open up to free trade. They are the second largest developed economy and in the top five in several manufacturing categories. They also have the highest ratio of public debt to GDP in the world and the Bank of Japan is paying (charging) negative interest rates. They have very strict immigration policy, and an aging and declining population that is retiring in droves without enough new taxpayers to fund their obligations. Japan is on the path to a world of hurt, and is a perfect example of how Trump-like protectionism plays out for a developed country in the long term.

None of the problems you listed in japan have a thing in the world to do with protectionist trade policy. Interesting such a tiny country is in the top five in so many
industries. They wouldnt have been in several or all of those without protectionism.

Agreed. But protectionist policies will only make this worse. Tariffs are nothing but artificial inflation, with the government pocketing the lost buying power. The SAME as inflationary money printing. Raising prices so the government can spend more. Politicians try to trick you into seeing it backwards, but that's all tariffs are.

Fun fact: you are siding with Karl Marx on this issue. I'm siding with Friedman, Mises, and Rothbard.

I am also in company with the likes of the founders of this nation, my personal favorite one. You are also in company with the IMF who uses debt and free trade to keep much of the third world on its knees. The parts of the third world who never take this debt and thus are not forced into free trade, like china, brazil, south korea are all growing. South korea most notably.

As far as Marxs stance, you are wrong. He supported communism not protectionism of industries he wanted to fail. He also agree with you on the point below having said....

"Tariff barriers are erected precisely because they are profitable and indispensable to one national bourgeoisie to the detriment of another, regardless of the fact that they act to retard the development of the economy as a whole."

He did think protecting trade worked for what I like it for though. having said...

"the conservation of the present state of affairs is accordingly the best result the protectionists can achieve in the most favourable circumstances. Good, but the problem for the working class is not to preserve the present state of affairs, but to transform it into its opposite."

He didnt in fact want protectionist policy though. He wanted something else entirely. You know communism. Having said....

"Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage labourers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other."

and

"The proletariat avoids the bourgeois dilemma - protectionism or free trade - with a solution of its own; neither protectionism nor free trade, but socialism, the organisation of production, the conscious control of the economy not by and for the benefit of the capitalist magnates but by and for society as a whole."

"We have no intention of defending protective tariffs any more than free trade, but rather of criticising both systems from our own standpoint. Ours is the communist standpoint"

In reality though Mar suported free trade because he thought protectionism secures a states future and free trade would eventually crush it at which point we could usher in communism. Having said

"But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."

The government cannot create sustainable jobs. Additional government interference in the market cannot create sustainable jobs. You are believing a politician who says he will "create jobs." You know better than that.

Nope government cannot create many sustainable jobs outside of those in government itself. We can however create a more balanced playing field in regards to the cost of production. We dont HAVE to let them just spend more with the additional funds. Heck we could even take it another track although maybe its to complex to pull off, but medium instead of high tariffs that go directly towards making the same goods produced here cheaper.

Your first thought completely contradicts the rest of that paragraph. We're in the economic mess we're in precisely because of government interference in the markets and expanding protectionism is just doubling down on government interference in the markets. It fails. It always does. If we want a sustainable economy, we have reduce government interference in the markets, not increase it. The answer to just about every government-created problem is less government, not more.

We are in the mess we are mostly because of trying to magnify our nations wealth which to me seems to be our response to the ravages of the global market. Back when we were the orlds main industrial base none of these issues were pressing. As others became heavy producers we did a range of things from over spending to repealing glass stegal and expanding fractional reserve banking the wealth of which circles around the market. As well as much of our growth being inflation based. I never argued ALL protectionism is good, and certainly not all government involvement in the markets. If by sustainable markets you mean accept drastically lower qualities of life as we meet the third world in the middle Id agree. If you think having a large middle class is sustainable with global free trade or even just a few third world nations Id definitely disagree. I can list several dozen nations who all built a middle class with protectionism as well as dozens the IMF kept o their knees through forced free trade. They never have a chance to build real capitol to build their own markets and wealth.

I found this video from 1980 after I wrote everything above. In it Friedman talks about the Japanese protectionist policies I mentioned above, and 36 years later they are ultimately playing out just how he warned.

Interesting how friedman said germanys targeted protectionism would today be called freetrade. None of the issues you listed about japan had anything to do with protectionism. Honestly friedman got stomped in the debate. Also never saw friedman or the other guy on his side list those problems japan currently has as coming in the future either as you imply.

[natsb88]

You talk about the founders supporting protectionist policies 200 years ago, but you also talk about the global economy being a modern phenomenon, so it stands to reason that an economic policy from 200 years ago might produce slightly different results today, and the people who supported it then might not feel the same about it in 2016. That's neither here nor there, really, since we can see from the likes of Japan what protectionism does today.

Japan's very protectionist economic and immigration policies are absolutely a major contributing factor to their current economic situation. It flies in the face of reason to claim that one is completely unrelated to the other. The hit they took from the tsunami cut the game short, but it's a path they have been paving for the last forty years. They are in trouble, and we will be too if we duplicate what they did, which is essentially what Trump is proposing. That's why I previously stated that Trump's plan sounds good if you are only worried about the next 20 years, but sounds very bad if you care about what the country looks like in 50 years.

Did you watch the video? The big-government guys argued that Japan's protectionist policies were working because Japan had higher wages than the US, but Friedman rightly pointed out that it was a false measure because despite the "higher wages" on the surface, the standard of living was much lower in Japan. Japan has continued to live beyond its means by keeping prices and wages artificially high and their debt is now 230% of GDP and rising, with a shrinking workforce and growing dependent population, and negative interest rates.

In the absolute best-case, textbook scenario, tariffs are a subsidy from taxpayers to corporations in exchange for an increased number of jobs, but the increased number of jobs always have less sum value than the cost of the subsidy. It's like if you pay $100 in taxes to the federal government to buy office supplies for your town hall, you get fewer net office supplies than if you just went to the store yourself, because that $100 gets chipped away with every layer of bureaucracy it has to filter through to get back down to the local level. It's the same when you collect tariff revenue to "create jobs."

In practice, protectionist policies are a mechanism for inflation. An increase in government spending power and a decrease in buying power for consumers. Same as printing money. Apply a tariff to jack up the price of goods, that allows domestic producers to add a few jobs at the existing prevailing wage, but now everybody working at the prevailing wage experiences a drop in quality of life due to not being able to afford the now more-expensive goods. Government is pressured to jack up the minimum wage to coincide with the inflated price of goods, the domestic producers can no longer compete with the new higher wages, and we're back where we started, just with another cycle of inflation in the books. The only winner here is the government, which gets to kick the can further down the road. Protectionism is a stall tactic and the real problems (oversized government, overspending, over regulation, inflation) compound and get bigger in the background all the meanwhile.

Marx only "supported" free trade to the extent that it took power away from the existing government and gave it to the people. What he wanted to replace the existing government with was obviously a completely different direction from what libertarians and free market proponents advocate. Libertarians want to take power away from the government and give it back to the markets. Protectionism is much more in line with socialism than free markets.

It's like we're both standing at a fence looking at horses in a farmer's field. He's a small family farmer and he can no longer compete with the factory farms that hire lobbyists to push legislation and subsidies that favor the corporate farm over the independent farm. So I propose we get rid of the bought-and-paid-for regulatory barriers that the small farmer can't afford to navigate and allow him to produce and sell his goods to his local market with minimal intervention. But you propose, instead, that the government slaps a hefty tax on goods produced by the larger farms to make them more expensive for consumers so that hopefully the small farmer can comply with all the regulatory burdens and still compete with the big farms. But now that food costs 50% more for the consumer, his farm hands want a big raise that the small farmer can't afford, and you've already run the cheap labor out of the country, so the farmer is back to square one, with less buying power than when he started. Then there's something about the government coming in to paint stripes on the horses so they look like zebras so the small farmer can sell them for more to temporarily protect his middle class status, and complaints about farmers in China stealing our jobs

Now I have to get back to producing goods for a customer in Australia. He has to limit the amount he buys from me because over a (relatively low) threshold he gets nailed with import tariffs. Nobody in Australia makes what I make, but the tariff drives the price up too high to resell. If we had an actual free trade agreement, we'd be doing more mutually beneficial business.

There's also a Chinese-made piece of equipment I have my eye on. It's a nice clean operation in China with a helpful staff, they all make a good living producing quality machines for customers around the world. Their machines are 50% - 70% less expensive than a US-built machine with the same capabilities. I could purchase a machine from them and offer a new service to our customers, keep more work in-house, create more spec products to sell, and potentially create a new job opening. But if Trump slaps a big tariff on that machine? Forget it. I don't go to a US manufacturer instead of a Chinese manufacturer, I just don't buy the machine at all. The barrier of entry becomes too high, the payback period is not worth the investment, and that business and job growth just doesn't happen. For my business and employees or the nice folks who build the machines in China.

This is how protectionist policies play out in the real world.