Trump

[Treetop]

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.

Except the issues you listed of japan were not caused by protectionist trade policy. Also it was a global market then as well just not as extreme. Europeans of the time worked for much less then their US counterparts and tariffs are what enabled us to build up our industry anyway.

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.

Trumps immigration policy has nothing in the world to do with japans. He want to block an influx of illegal immigrants and also vet all immigrants.

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.

They wouldnt even have the industry anywhere close to the level they do without protectionism. Keeping wages and prices high has nothing to do with the fact they spent beyond their means as a nation.

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."

That isnt the full explanation of the best case scenario. You somehow both want to end social programs tens of millions rely on to even eat while also denigrating the best way we can ensure work for our citizens in a global market. Sure we can just pay drastically lower and erase enviro standards so our rivers catch on fire again but that is hardly better then securing work for our people and paying a bit more for goods. The bigger the middle class the more this money circulates through the economy as well. To bring back the tens of millions of jobs we need NOW in this global economy if the whole world had the truly free trade you speak of wed need to pay something closer to 2 bucks an hour then current wages. Why do I say this? Its obvious and undeniable billions on earth will work for less the that.

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.

Oh wait you care about quality of life? Dude competing with slaves will lower our quality of life. Any new field we build will simply move to the third world the next generation. We would already be closer to brazil standards then our own if not for us expanding our economy in unsustainable ways. Those are not the only real problems though. More then half the world doesnt care if they can drink their water, or if they make just enough to eat. They are quickly closing the gap on tech as well. We definitely need to shrink size of gov, stop over spending, over regulating and inflation shouldnt be the policy of the federal reserve but you didnt address in any vague way how we retain a decent quality of life in the face of what amounts to slaves. You just gloss over it. You make what o the surface sounds like a good case here but in physical reality I can sit here and show you endless examples of the third world staying that way because of forced freetrade and nations building a middle class solely because of protectionism. Not ideals but real world concrete examples. Modern examples not 200 year ones as you mention above. Government could likely be half its current size with as good of results but that wouldnt fix our problem of competing with slaves at all. Lower taxes would help a bit but not actually change the paradigm.

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.

He supported free trade because he thought it would make the difference between the poor and wealthy greater and crash the global market and usher in the ability for communism to take hold. Here we are with wages already stagnant in our nation the the very wealthy better off then ever. He was right. Heck we also are having the roots of the revolution he wanted forming, bernie sanders shows that. As well as the "99%" protestors who in general had no idea what they wanted but rich people were bad. Marx didnt support protectionism at all as you had claimed he thought it lead to stability and wealthy enough workers they wouldnt rebel. I support public schools and police and fire departments as well, so call me a socialist if you like since I want out nation to make sure we can retain decent lifestyles here in the face of third world nations horrible pay and conditions. By your logic expressed there the nation most established in freedom then any other before it was socialist. (ours)

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

Dead wrong. It is more like there are two massive farms. The US farm is often more efficient and cutting edge, but we have a high quality of life and we expect things like clean water. Our workers and families of those workers expect a decent lifestyle. These are MY people, I want them to have decent lives. Next to it is a farm that is often slower to lead on tech a disadvantage but they make up for it by having people who only expect enough to eat and a very low standard of living. Their water is horrible but they dont care because they just want to eat. So they flood our US market with product much cheaper then we can hope to produce even with our tech advantage. And this is a global market so our high tech moves over to them in time anyway because US based companies can move to the land of near slave level farms and do better then the locals giving them jobs instead of us, as well as our tech advantage moving there. Those big US farms simply move capitol elsewhere. I dont want our US workers to have to directly compete with those near slave level workers from this other farm. Forget the ideals I want decent quality of life for my nations farmers. We can never do that competing directly with slaves who dont care at all if their water is drinkable.

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.

And give it a generation as what chinas version of the middle class builds a little capitol and youd never have a chance to sell in austrailia anyway unless you want to work for a tiny fraction of what you do currently.

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 protection policies play out in the real world.

If we really want to get into how protectionism plays out in the real world I will start posting example after example and we can get into more depth here. Its not perfect but its clear its better then without it. Not even debatable assuming the person debated wants a strong middle class instead of simply ideals. There are several examples Ive encountered similar to what you describe but they are dwarfed by the examples I encounter showing protectionism is better. you do realize what china calls a middle class which is I assume the chineese workers you speak of is drastically lower quaility of life then even our poorest who have work?

How do you suggest we create jobs for the 10s of millions you want to be cut off of social programs? Erase minimum wage and pay 3 bucks an hour? Yeah I dont agree. If we had global free trade tomorrow, and actually lived within our means wed need to drastically lower standard of living. You can twist and turn any way you like but we both know its true. Perot had it right in 1992, the giant sucking sound is still going and it would be more obvious if we werent unsustainably inflated our economy in a range of ways. Heck dude, theres a solid chance youd not have the company you have at all already if we werent living in an inflated paradigm that we cannot sustain. Although Im just guessing as I dont know fully what you do past selling coins and such. Many other small business though would be long gone. I dont want to meet the third world in the middle. I know we can never sustainably re create the wealth level of the past (unless energy or some other factor gets extremely cheaper) but we can do better then meeting the third world in the middle.

Notice you just continue to gloss over this? You havent explained where 10s of millions of jobs we need TODAY will come from. No doubt many little not utilized niches out there but nothing close to what we need for 10s of millions. Lets alone the additional millions who would be out of work if we werent artificially inflating our economy in a range of ways. We would look more like brazil if we got what you want with a very high class, a small middle class and a bunch of dirt poor people who cant do much past their shacks and ghettos and food. That is not what I want for this nations future.

You get stuck on the higher prices we pay for goods but arent stepping back to see the bigger picture. Keep in mind the global economy is only a few hundred years old. And increasing in speed since ww2. I can only guess how long it will be before we meet the third world in the middle, 2 generations? 3? Maybe not even that though because again we already inflate ourselves in a myriad of ways and as a portion of income the slave made goods would already cost more as a portion of income then our US made ones did for a family in the 70s if we didnt do that, Id bet. Where you seem to think of yourself I have mostly the same ideals a far as personal liberty and such and governments role except I dont want to meet third worlders in the middle.

Heck it wont change MY life so much, our house will be paid off in a few yers if I cant get the capitol for my orchard plans by then I will be able to at that point. Little reason to think land taxes will go up here so I will always have wide profit margins due to the nature of how I am doing things. If property taxes went up here no one would own land here anyway and theyd get no property taxes at all. People need food even if poor. I will be fine in this global model. Heck after circling around profits a few times into expanding I could just move to the third world workers myself. The same principles would work in mexico or elsewhere. But Im not just thinking of myself. I want my whole culture to have decent lives. I of course dont like us playing global police but I want us to be able to sustainably afford our large military as well. Millions would already be rioting in the streets without social programs that are breeding a class of entitlement folks. I didnt understand this part fully until I lived here in the SW and saw what generational welfare does. If we just cut them off without having jobs they will starve. We could go old school and set people up with homesteads I guess with minimal capitol up front but we can do better then that.

My reading of history implies to me the 3 most important things for a cultures longterm health is having a strong military that they use to protect rather then imperialism. Next you need secure borders that you do not have endless waves from worse off areas coming in and this causes a rane of issues we are already starting to see today in our own nation. Third you need enough work that you do not have an entitlement class as rome eventually had. Only protectionism offers this as a potential in a global market place. Or conversely such low quality of life for the bulk of the population that we are dramatically poorer per capita then the nation is today. This is literally trumps platform. For all his faults Id bet he has a decent grasp of history.

Truth is our quality of life WILL go down here even WITH protectionism. If you cannot see the obvious nature of that I dont think you are paying attention to the big picture. We are on borrowed time in an inflated paradigm. Protectionism cannot secure our current wealth level per capita. It can however ensure we have a lower quality middle class then currently in the long term. We need to crush out the fact so many currently rely on social programs. That is a slippery slope we might have went to far onto already. Not by just cutting them off and watching them starve or accept slave wages but by finding ways to have new industry produce here, which circles around to a bigger service economy as well.

When I get some time Ill start posting examples to make my case. Ive been reading about both sides of this alot lately if you arent aware, perhaps you never looked there are solid examples of issues from protectionism as you insist but they are dwarfed by the positive examples. The answer is clear.

[Treetop]

According to the Reuters polls Trump gained 7 points on hillary in the last 3 days. We havent had wikileaks show us what they have yet either which he insists includes illegal actions and a range of other questionable things. This in the face of reuters recently deciding to use a higher amount of democrats then is represented nationally (yes there are more dems officially then republicans but they use more dems then represented by the stats)

[Treetop]

Decided to study more on japan. Still pretty clear protectionism wins. Their biggest issues is a shrinking economy whereas the Us takes in more then enough people legally to ensure a stable or growing population. They call their post ww2 economic success "the japannese economic miracle" during which they became the worlds second largest economy having fallen to third after china passed them. Eventually though a shrinking population and like our own nation trying to artificially inflate themselves in their case through excessive spending and like our housing bubble through giving as many loans as possible past what people could pay back. So while some of their issues relate to a to involved government none of them relate to protectionism as discussed. Instead protectionism gave them immense wealth, they just didnt think it was enough apparently. Eventually a lack of growth similar to what happened when our housing market crashed but also driven by a shrinking population crashed their stock market heavily. Often called the lost decade or lost 20 years depending on source. One of the final triggers on that was when they sharply raised inter banking lending rates which finally pierced the bubble. They ALSO like us played the to big to fail game which didnt go well.

So yeah I dont agree protectionism hurt them at all. Its the single reason they did anywhere close to as well as they did, and if they hadnt inflated themselves as they did, and didnt play the to big to fail game and especially if they let in immigrants at replacement levels theyd have never had issues. They also have heavy social program spending.

Interesting to note, south korea is one of their big competitors, and they also rose to where they did with protectionism. They did open parts of the market later to ease issues from the 80s but are still rather protectionist. They were third worlders in 1960 and now are on par with the west for the most part. Similar story as parts of japans but they seem to have managed it better. They call their rise from one of the worlds poorest to their current state the "miracle on han river". They had a liquidity crisis for a bit and the IMF helped them but for the most part did very well with it all. GDP per capita was 79 in 1960 and was 2300 in 1990 an 30k by 2010. They are the 7th member of the 20-50 club which is having a population surpassing 50 million and maintaining per capita income of US$20,000. The others are Japan, United States of America, France, Italy, Germany and United Kingdom.

The more I read the more positive I am correctly managed protectionism is far and away superior to free trade.

[Rodebaugh]

Goodness, I'm going to have to take a day off to read all this. (the thread)

[natsb88]

I have always agreed that consumer spending / quality of life here is unsustainable. Not sure why you keep painting it like I think there is some other reality. The balance is indeed somewhere between the over-extended position we are in now and the quality of life in manufacturing export nations (you are still grossly misusing "slave" and "slave wages"). That's why your support for protectionism baffles me. Protectionism is just another inflationary mechanism to try to sustain that unsustainable delta a little longer. The longer we kick the can down the road, the more severe the inevitable correction will be.

Let's forget the bigger picture of protectionism for a moment (I completely disagree with your glossed over analysis of Japan but that's a topic for a different discussion) and get back to the thread topic: Trump and his policies.

I am 100% confident that Trump's proposed tariffs will absolutely NOT bring back the "tens of millions of jobs" we need. It would allow for a few million at most. (We have several million unfilled "living wage" jobs here now that we can't get people to do as it is, and they pay better than manufacturing). When manufacturing comes back to the US, it is highly automated. It uses fewer employees than ever. It is not an assembly line employing hundreds of blue collar workers. Once it's up and running, it's a management team, a maintenance team, and a small number of operators. That's the only way to do it. Not only are payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, and required insurance and benefits too expensive to sustain a large workforce, but the cost of regulatory compliance here is HUGE, versus nearly non-existent in other markets. Manufacturers are not going to make big investments in infrastructure here when the breeze could blow the other way with the next administration and undo the special treatment and subsidies (sorry, the "job-creating" tariffs) that just barely tip their model to the viable side.

I LOVE manufacturing. My background is in mechanical engineering. My family's business services dozens of manufacturers and we do some manufacturing of our own. We compete directly with China in some areas and work with China in others. It is very much a 2-way street. We have US-made and Swiss-made and Taiwanese-made and Chinese-made equipment on the floor. We service a lot of Italian-made, Spanish-made, and Japanese-made equipment for customers. We're a small business but we're involved in a little bit of everything. Tool and die work, plastic injection molding, gun parts, medical parts, prototyping, packaging equipment, meat and diary processing... I've worked inside plastics factories, mushroom packers, small meat packers, huge beef and pork plants that measure hourly output in TONS, a national door manufacturer, wrestling mats, cheese and yogurt plants, furniture and cabinet makers, utility companies, and countless small businesses. I like nothing more than to see things being made here, and more stuff is made here than you seem to think, as there are lots of products where offshoring is not feasible. But I am realistic about our standing in the global economy and what we can sustain here, and am 100% confident that the Trump-Treetop plan will not work.

In all likelihood even if Trump is elected he's going to have a hard time getting major tariffs passed (as he should). 30% or 50% on Chinese goods is not going to bring back all that many jobs. You'd have to crank it up to 100% - 150% to begin to offset the much higher cost of doing business here (beyond just labor). Then we're looking at phones, televisions, microwaves, coffee makers, clothing, car parts, packaged foods, and tons of other consumables that cost 2-3 times what they cost now. So then you'd move people from getting $7/hour on welfare to getting $10/hour in manufacturing. But now they need at least $15/hour to afford the basics of what we consider middle class so they go back to looking for government assistance anyway.

When you put tariffs on imports, they are paid by the consumer buying the imports, not the country exporting them. That money doesn't just appear out of thin air. And the US does not operate in a vacuum, so retaliatory tariffs will be placed on US goods in other countries. That makes the things we do export less desirable. Those factors more than offset the perceived gained jobs brought in by tariffs.

So where do the jobs come from? The "gig economy" is bigger than you give it credit for. Technology is reducing the need for manual labor in manufacturing, but it also allows anybody with some intelligence and a solid work ethic to work for themselves if they wish. Programming, web development, computer and phone repair, engineering work, graphic design, product design...all require not much more than a skill set and a computer. With a little more investment you can produce music and videos, design and build product prototypes, offer more extensive IT services. Have a car? Drive for Uber and Lyft. Live in a populated area? Set up a room for Airbnb. Don't have the skills or desire to run your own business? Work from home doing data entry or customer support.

The days of massive new factories employing thousands of people under one roof are gone and they aren't coming back, tariffs or no tariffs. Job growth is not about central planning and government creating jobs, it's about decentralization and deregulation, allowing people to work for themselves and to keep what they earn.

That's all in addition to the unfilled skilled and semi-skilled positions I talked about earlier in this thread. Millions of jobs in welding, plumbing, HVAC, gas & oil, mechanics, electricians, that exist today. Want to encourage more of that? If we can't do away with the tuition-inflating subsidized federal loans altogether, at least divert some of that misspent student loan subsidy money to apprenticeship programs, and stop subsidizing degrees in fields where there are no jobs.

As for the unskilled, uneducated people collecting handouts who do not have the ability or ambition to do any of the above? If you cut off the free money, suddenly those "help wanted" signs at the gas station become more appealing. Agricultural producers and the food processing industry are more than happy to hire Americans instead of immigrants, just have to motivate those Americans to apply. Worried about increased crime from the unemployed? If the federal government cracked down on unconstitutional state and city gun laws we'd have fewer repeat offenders and we'd be paying to house and feed fewer people in prison.

I dont want our US workers to have to directly compete with those near slave level workers from this other farm. Forget the ideals

This is a decidedly anti-free-market anti-libertarian stance. Which is fine if that's what you believe in, but then you can't blame libertarians (or even economic conservatives) for not supporting Trump. Competition is an essential pillar of capitalism, and government picking winners and losers (domestically or internationally) is not part of the free market equation. Political borders should not necessarily be economic borders and you not wanting to work as cheaply as someone else is willing to does not justify taking steps to economic isolation.

A lot of people talk about how Trump wants to take us back in time 100 years (or some variation of that). To me that in itself isn't a problem. Let's go back before we had the EPA, the ED, the IRS, the NSA, the BATFE, and a bunch of that other stuff. That'd be great, and THEN we'd actually have a shot at bringing back a lot of manufacturing jobs. The problem is that isn't the part of the "100 years ago" Trump is looking at. He is looking at antiquated economic policies that don't work in today's global economy (if they ever worked at all) and there's no way he would get them implemented anyway (same with his immigration plans...totally empty BS promises). Adding more government intervention is way easier to sell than getting rid of the intervention we already have. He doesn't care if it's realistic (it's not) or if it will work (it won't). He gets cheap support by ripping on China with the economy the same way he gets cheap support by ripping on Mexico when it comes to immigration. Trump knows how to sell himself to a targeted audience. That's the only "business" he's good at.

[Treetop]

I have always agreed that consumer spending / quality of life here is unsustainable. Not sure why you keep painting it like I think there is some other reality. The balance is indeed somewhere between the over-extended position we are in now and the quality of life in manufacturing export nations (you are still grossly misusing "slave" and "slave wages"). That's why your support for protectionism baffles me. Protectionism is just another inflationary mechanism to try to sustain that unsustainable delta a little longer. The longer we kick the can down the road, the more severe the inevitable correction will be.

I consider it slave wages when you have a solid job but can barely afford food. Even the fools working for minimum wage at a burger joint here in the US can excel in most of the country in comparison if they are frugal. My grandmother has been to china and saw wht passes for a middle class there. It was horrible as compared to us.

Let's forget the bigger picture of protectionism for a moment (I completely disagree with your glossed over analysis of Japan but that's a topic for a different discussion) and get back to the thread topic: Trump and his policies.

That was a short synapses but spot on.

I am 100% confident that Trump's proposed tariffs will absolutely NOT bring back the "tens of millions of jobs" we need. It would allow for a few million at most. (We have several million unfilled "living wage" jobs here now that we can't get people to do as it is, and they pay better than manufacturing). When manufacturing comes back to the US, it is highly automated. It uses fewer employees than ever. It is not an assembly line employing hundreds of blue collar workers. Once it's up and running, it's a management team, a maintenance team, and a small number of operators. That's the only way to do it. Not only are payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, and required insurance and benefits too expensive to sustain a large workforce, but the cost of regulatory compliance here is HUGE, versus nearly non-existent in other markets. Manufacturers are not going to make big investments in infrastructure here when the breeze could blow the other way with the next administration and undo the special treatment and subsidies (sorry, the "job-creating" tariffs) that just barely tip their model to the viable side.

Funny how you put tens of millions in quotes as if I am wrong yet these people all rely on social programs currently. What would they do without it? I do agree we probably cant bring back tens of millions either, but some is better then bleeding out more. Trump also wants o heavily cut regulations and taxes, which deflates much of what you say here.

I LOVE manufacturing. My background is in mechanical engineering. My family's business services dozens of manufacturers and we do some manufacturing of our own. We compete directly with China in some areas and work with China in others. It is very much a 2-way street. We have US-made and Swiss-made and Taiwanese-made and Chinese-made equipment on the floor. We service a lot of Italian-made, Spanish-made, and Japanese-made equipment for customers. We're a small business but we're involved in a little bit of everything. Tool and die work, plastic injection molding, gun parts, medical parts, prototyping, packaging equipment, meat and diary processing... I've worked inside plastics factories, mushroom packers, small meat packers, huge beef and pork plants that measure hourly output in TONS, a national door manufacturer, wrestling mats, cheese and yogurt plants, furniture and cabinet makers, utility companies, and countless small businesses. I like nothing more than to see things being made here, and more stuff is made here than you seem to think, as there are lots of products where offshoring is not feasible. But I am realistic about our standing in the global economy and what we can sustain here, and am 100% confident that the Trump-Treetop plan will not work.

I never said how much I think is made here in any precise way actually. It is however pretty hard to buy american with many consumer goods.

In all likelihood even if Trump is elected he's going to have a hard time getting major tariffs passed (as he should). 30% or 50% on Chinese goods is not going to bring back all that many jobs. You'd have to crank it up to 100% - 150% to begin to offset the much higher cost of doing business here (beyond just labor). Then we're looking at phones, televisions, microwaves, coffee makers, clothing, car parts, packaged foods, and tons of other consumables that cost 2-3 times what they cost now. So then you'd move people from getting $7/hour on welfare to getting $10/hour in manufacturing. But now they need at least $15/hour to afford the basics of what we consider middle class so they go back to looking for government assistance anyway.

As I said way back, its not even just the middle class Im concerned about but having even crappy jobs would help immensely. Tariffs could go directly to offsetting the higher cost of goods as well. Depends how we use them. Meaning if we bring in 30% could put that directly towards the cost of those same things made here. Done that way they only need to be half of whatever they would need to be to balance it. Maybe to tricky but some variation of that is possible.

When you put tariffs on imports, they are paid by the consumer buying the imports, not the country exporting them. That money doesn't just appear out of thin air. And the US does not operate in a vacuum, so retaliatory tariffs will be placed on US goods in other countries. That makes the things we do export less desirable. Those factors more than offset the perceived gained jobs brought in by tariffs.

We ALREADY face tariffs in many other nations, such as china and many others. You say this yet consistently protected economies grow and non protected ones shrink their working class. I will make a list here soon.

So where do the jobs come from? The "gig economy" is bigger than you give it credit for. Technology is reducing the need for manual labor in manufacturing, but it also allows anybody with some intelligence and a solid work ethic to work for themselves if they wish. Programming, web development, computer and phone repair, engineering work, graphic design, product design...all require not much more than a skill set and a computer. With a little more investment you can produce music and videos, design and build product prototypes, offer more extensive IT services. Have a car? Drive for Uber and Lyft. Live in a populated area? Set up a room for Airbnb. Don't have the skills or desire to run your own business? Work from home doing data entry or customer support.

As our middle and lower class dwindle in the face of globalism fewer will be able to afford several of the things you list actually.

The days of massive new factories employing thousands of people under one roof are gone and they aren't coming back, tariffs or no tariffs. Job growth is not about central planning and government creating jobs, it's about decentralization and deregulation, allowing people to work for themselves and to keep what they earn.

Those are all good but in the face of people making horribly low wages we will indeed continue to bleed out jobs. These are not mutually exclusive at all.

That's all in addition to the unfilled skilled and semi-skilled positions I talked about earlier in this thread. Millions of jobs in welding, plumbing, HVAC, gas & oil, mechanics, electricians, that exist today. Want to encourage more of that? If we can't do away with the tuition-inflating subsidized federal loans altogether, at least divert some of that misspent student loan subsidy money to apprenticeship programs, and stop subsidizing degrees in fields where there are no jobs.

Agree with this, (although doubt its millions, but the rest is spot on) but there still isnt enough work waiting for a worker to cover our current shortage. Nowhere close.

As for the unskilled, uneducated people collecting handouts who do not have the ability or ambition to do any of the above? If you cut off the free money, suddenly those "help wanted" signs at the gas station become more appealing. Agricultural producers and the food processing industry are more than happy to hire Americans instead of immigrants, just have to motivate those Americans to apply. Worried about increased crime from the unemployed? If the federal government cracked down on unconstitutional state and city gun laws we'd have fewer repeat offenders and we'd be paying to house and feed fewer people in prison.

No help wanted sign stays up for long where I live now or grew up in ohio. Not so sure on that ag. producers atleast not system wide. I was blocked from picking ranges when I live din florida based on race I was willing to work for what they paid which if your fast was actually decent for where I was in my life at the time. Thats a side point though. Not sure your right entirely on gun laws. If you look into it less and less people by the decade would even use a gun if they could legally carry. Could likely do a bit better then that but we probably already hit critical mass on that in any rural area, and lots of city people will never use them anyway.

This is a decidedly anti-free-market anti-libertarian stance. Which is fine if that's what you believe in, but then you can't blame libertarians (or even economic conservatives) for not supporting Trump. Competition is an essential pillar of capitalism, and government picking winners and losers (domestically or internationally) is not part of the free market equation. Political borders should not necessarily be economic borders and you not wanting to work as cheaply as someone else is willing to does not justify taking steps to economic isolation.

Pffft I dont blame anyone for who they support that actually tries to study the issues. If you just vote for someone because they have a D or an R or L or G next to their name then your an idiot. But if you vote for what you believe in or even against what you think will fail us I cant fault you. We are all our own people. I disagree on your last point here. It does justify it. I dont ant to meet the third world in the middle. We will go closer to them no matter what we do, but we can do better then just blindly following ideals and buffer ourselves a little. I could only guess exactly how well. But it is consistent despite your insistence those who use protectionism do drastically better then those who do not. Already industrialized nations bleed out jobs even WHILE artificially inflating ourselves and of third world nations ZERO used free trade or partial freetrade to rise, but many have used protectionism to rise.

A lot of people talk about how Trump wants to take us back in time 100 years (or some variation of that). To me that in itself isn't a problem. Let's go back before we had the EPA, the ED, the IRS, the NSA, the BATFE, and a bunch of that other stuff. That'd be great, and THEN we'd actually have a shot at bringing back a lot of manufacturing jobs. The problem is that isn't the part of the "100 years ago" Trump is looking at. He is looking at antiquated economic policies that don't work in today's global economy (if they ever worked at all) and there's no way he would get them implemented anyway (same with his immigration plans...totally empty BS promises). Adding more government intervention is way easier to sell than getting rid of the intervention we already have. He doesn't care if it's realistic (it's not) or if it will work (it won't). He gets cheap support by ripping on China with the economy the same way he gets cheap support by ripping on Mexico when it comes to immigration. Trump knows how to sell himself to a targeted audience. That's the only "business" he's good at.

Actually he does suggest getting rid of several not all of those letter agencies mentioned. Yes those antiquated ideals provably work in todays global economy. I will get back to you on that when I can make a comprehensive list. It is consistent and obvious the more I look. We need government out of the way on a range of things but need to level the playing field a bit. Of course we cannot do that entirely its not magic. hilarious you think protectionism might never have worked at all, Im not convinced you studied this past ideological level, with all due respect. Our owns nations industry would never have gotten off the ground as it did without it plus dozens of other examples. Trump does talk of getting rid of some of the interventionism we already have though. I think you are wrong trump says what he does simply for cheap support on these particular issues anyway. Trade especially, he ran on it way back in 2000 as well.


I already knew you thought most you said here, its the classic ideological stance of libertarians the political party I actually agree with more then the others. Im kinda baffled about what you keep saying when I call many third world nations and such slave labor though. Sure they get to go home at night (well actually lots of people in china have to sleep at work and go home on weekends) but their quality of life is closer to what slaves had then our ow lifestyles. Lov free markets but not free trade across borders with different values and expectations.

Heres a side angle. Even if trump wins and did effectively bring back some amount of lost production once we cannot live in this inflated bubble anymore our quality of live in the natio willimo already drop considerably. Without such a model working it will be eve worse. When this happens where will the liberty movement be? Did you see how popular sanders was with the youth? Despite what you say protectionism has a proven track record of sucess. Bernies magical thinking has a proven track record as well of utter failure. How do such people react when they dont get their way? We are going to move even deeper into totalitarianism before we fall far enough we might go the other way. I expect blod in the streets honestly. Might sound extreme today but its coming. I engage these pople constantly and they will just blame wealthy and government for not giving them more. Nothing i the world will change their minds. Long before we meet the third world in the middle we will have significant riots in the streets and increasingly angry mobs. Medicaid, medicare and social security by themselves are will account for most of our expected budget by 2030. They may exist in some form but hordes rely on something there is no way we can meet the obligations on. Historically it is rare if not non existent that a nation moves towards less complexity and authoritarian. We see the same patterns over and over. Once we truly fall on our faces should this happen in my lifetime I do expect large swaths of the Us to move towards liberty but only after all else fails. Theres bit of truth to american exceptionalism. But its buried. I engage people all over the globe in my alternative ag field. You just dont find the ingenuity level we have here anywhere else in my personal experience.

All this said wed have been much much better off had we started a similarly themed path back when perot suggested it in 1992. He was also a considerably better business man then trump. Its still better to try to fall to one knee then flat on our face though. Global markets arent going away. I want a future for my kids and their peers. I will get a few lists going here in the next few days when I have the time to devote to it. It is very consistent. Industrialized nations mainly sustain themselves with debt as they embrace even only weak free trade with a few poorer nations and their middle classes shrink. Whereas third worlders who embrace protectionism excel and those who do not barely keep mining and ag jobs. I expect there are a few but I havent yet found exceptions to this.

[johnbrickner]

Zac:

My up front apologies first. I've taken the liberty to edit your post to get to it's essence. I take full responsibility for all acts, additions and omissions that may misconstrue your true meanings. I initially did my best to show where I edited but, it was to big a job. Hopefully, you don't take it personal as my intention is to show what great work you have here both in stating the problems we as a nation have but, with solutions also. To say you have insight is an understatement.

The only winner here is the government, which gets to kick the can further down the road. The real problems (oversized government, overspending, over regulation, inflation) compound and get bigger in the background all the meanwhile.

We definitely need to shrink size of gov, stop over spending, over regulating and inflation shouldn't be the policy of the federal reserve . . . how (do) we retain a decent quality of life in the face of what amounts to (competing with) slaves? . . . . Government could likely be half its current size with as good of results but that wouldn't fix our problem of competing with slaves at all. Lower taxes would help a bit but not actually change the paradigm.

Here we are with wages already stagnant in our nation (and) the very wealthy better off then ever. We are having the roots of the revolution, Bernie Sanders shows that. As well as the "99%" protestors who in general had no idea what they wanted but rich people were bad.

The US farm is often (most) efficient and cutting edge. We have a high quality of life and we expect things like clean water. Our workers and families of those workers expect a decent lifestyle. Forget the ideals I want decent quality of life for my nations farmers. We can never do that competing directly with slaves who don't care at all if their water is drinkable.

How do . . . we create jobs for . . . 10s of millions? If we had global free trade tomorrow, and actually lived within our means we'd . . . drastically lower standard of living.

Perot had it right in 1992, the giant sucking sound is still going and it would be more obvious if we weren't unsustainably inflated our economy in a range of ways. We can never sustainably recreate the wealth level of the past (unless energy or some other factor gets extremely cheaper) but we can do better then meeting the third world in the middle.

Step back to see the bigger picture. The global economy is only a few hundred years old and increasing in speed (growth?) since ww2. I can only guess how long it will be before we meet the third world in the middle, 2 generations? 3? Maybe not even that because we already inflate ourselves in a myriad of ways.

The quality of (our) life WILL go down (regardless). If you cannot see the obvious nature of that I don't think you are paying attention to the big picture. We are on borrowed time in an inflated paradigm. We need to crush out the fact so many currently rely on social programs. That is a slippery slope we might have went to far onto already. Not by just cutting them off and watching them starve or accept slave wages but by finding ways to have new industry produce here, which circles around to a bigger service economy as well.*

I want my whole culture to have decent lives. We could go old school and set people up with homesteads with minimal capitol up front but we can do better then that.

My reading of history implies to me the 3 most important things for a cultures long term health is: Having a strong military that they use to protect; secure borders; and enough work that you do not have an entitlement class.

The answer is clear.

That you have the best interests of the greater population of average Americans at heart is self-evident. I've underlined and bolded what I consider to be the greatest problem and what appears to be the best answer to the problem in your writing above. I'd love to have you expand on and detail the underlined and bolded answer above. What new industries and how will they circle around to expanding the service economy. I find this answer novel, original and something I have not seen touched on before by other so-called experts.

My appreciation and thanks in advance,

[Treetop]

Well my answer to that would be in part what nate seemed to hint at. Id personally love to see publicly funded or cheap not profit driven trade schools, as well as colleges trying to get people to take relevant degrees rather then just fil seats. Part of the problem here is also driven by subsidizing colleges which drives up costs considerably. dont feel like look up the nunbers but its immense.

On a related note our public schools have TONS of overhead. We also buy curriculum with these crazy sweetheart deals. My state of 2 million spends if I remember right it was 2 billion every three years on this. Id have to look it up to be sure but its immense either way. There are literally 5 layers of bureaucracy in this state over the principal of the school. My wife as a teacher has no idea what most of these layers even do. Steep steep salaries.

So if I got to decide this Id take away most of those layers above the school, have federal minimum requirements and hire a range of the best teachers out there to design curriculums with a range of avenues that local schools can then use or not. As long as federal standards are met before students move on. Id ALSO stop making school mandatory. To much time on discipline. You dont show up to learn go home. That said Id ALSO have more accessible night schools and trade schools funded by the savings from primary education I discussed. SO even if you have a loser family or made poor choices in the past you can go back. Yes I know this isnt libertarian, but it would give us a more adaptable workforce.

I wouldnt cut out social programs as another suggested BUT Id give only staples to force people to want to try more.

I would use protectionism and lowering regulations as trump suggests to bring whatever industry we can back here. I will make a case for this protectionist part soon with lists of nations and details. Libertaians are simply wrong on this. Also would streamline what our gov does already as trump insists he plans to do. TO further lower burden on tax payers.

I would also do something like I believe it is austrailia does. Where if you cant find work you can get a LOW wage government job. Yikes Very not libertarian right? I dont care. Globalism is to big a deal to lay down on it. The things Id especially focus on with these workers is something you might not have heard elsewhere. We have the mississipii river, the great lakes, our coean, gulf of mexico and other lakes and rivers all in very poor states. The management we give these things focuses on game fish which brings in a bit of money. The thing is though fish used to be very abundant in these places. So many niches are NOT filled,, plus with areas like the oceans we provably ca put artificial reefs even where corals cannot grow and the places weve done this already there were massive increases of fish sustainability after. Just put the reefs there and the ecosystem fills in the life. So if this work was done wed have multiples more fish produced then these waters ever had. In doing this wed both create many jobs as well as make sure our country had cheap sources of food for whatever comes.

You can do other things on land as well. In fact Im pretty sur I inspired one such project amazingly in the exact canyon I live in. First of its kind pilot program. I had the idea and sent it out all over the place to dozens of state, county and national sources mentioning this forst by name and giving examples and picture to make my case. Then a year later one local office I sent it to spear headed a project that selectively thins the forest taking mostly the weaker trees in such a way they have a product to sell, create jobs and the forest is healthier for it. Less chance of fires as well etc etc. They pilot for this project is right in the very canyon I live in and used as an example when I sent this out. Not positive I inspired it but likely. I can go on in detail of other similar projects all for the least useful lands of which we have thousands of square miles we could use without affecting wildlife. This type of work isnt generally considered first world work of course, but we could do amazing things with such a mindset especially out here in the est with wide open landscapes, that frankly our current practice of letting cattle graze is slowly killing. Several millions of jobs here it al depends how far we took it. LOL if I had to guess nates rolling his eyes at this point, thinking no way I like libertarian stances at all. I do relate to them on more things then most dems and reps though, I do think central planning of the nature described here can not only give us more jobs but benefit us in a range of other ways as well. Lowering the costs of some foods, better stability for our lands through drought, a place to stick anyone without a job in a better model of what they did in the thirties. As well as greater food security then most could ever think is possible. Yes I know its a top down method, but done well this type of thing can pay for itself. Just as the project here in my canyon already does past some initial capitol to get it going. A project our mayor is looking into expanding after a prison closure and 375 lost jobs in our small town.

Also with immigration Id do as trump suggests, wall, slow illegals to a trickle or completely, target employers who use them etc. As well as heavily vet people coming in. Also Id purposely shift our immigration as much as I can towards bringing in intelligence. Like you have a clean past and want to come and have a high enough intelligence level your in. Intelligent people find a way when nothing works.

I also really like the fair tax. which gets flak from the left for supposedly favoring the wealthy and the right since everyone gets a check regardless monthly. This I feel can make our industry more competitive, as well as letting us get rid of the IRS which obviously is lost jobs but worthless ones when we could collect our taxes more effectively from fewer sources. The left is also wrong we could ensure no one pays taxes up to whatever the poverty level is currently, readily, and in real time.



I consider myself a liberal libertarian. I think our issues are to deep to rely on markets alone, but any government intervention has to have real goals and in the case of the types of government based job creation I suggested above can in fact pay for itself. There are 1000s of ways our government needs to get out of the way, but we can indeed create jobs that fund themselves if we do it right. Im not sure what Id find online if I even tried to look, but it is already working here locally in my forest canyon.

So how does this circle back to improve the service economy as well? Well... people buy stuff. The more production based jobs you can create the more services they will want and be able to afford.

[Treetop]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7A33TnA5fw

Julian assange doesnt directly say it but more directly implies seth rich the guy killed days after the DNC leak became public was a wikileaks source.

Also of note DCleaks the source of the Soros hacked material had their twitter account cancelled and all soros material purged from their site. BTW, speaking of free trade, totally open borders and free trade are policy of Soros. He pushed them through a range of organizations and he didnt exactly say (atleast in the ones I encountered so far, going to look for the rest here soon) that he supports free trade to hurt nations BUT in some of this material they openly discuss how free trade costs jobs. This is a guy who has purposely crashed currencies to make billions. Reading between the lines he sure seems to think these two things will lead to the world he wants. Remember obamas promise to help de industrialize the US?

[scyther]

I didn't read all of that. I just have a couple comments. I hope Japan stays "isolationist" when it comes to immigration. I hope Japanese people see what open borders have done to Europe and America and learn from our mistake. Also, the phrase "forced free trade" sounds Orwellian.

[Treetop]

Also, the phrase "forced free trade" sounds Orwellian.

Well if you look into how the IMF works youd see this is indeed a thing, which within a few days Ill put up some more info on. Or soon whenever I get several hours in a row I can dig into it. The IMF gets parts of the third world into debt then forces them to spend the money as they insist most of the time then forces then into "free trade" that keeps them focused on selling resources and the like and never building capitol. Lots of exception but that pattern is common.

[natsb88]

I don't have much time to spend on this today so I'm just going to pull a few key points out.

Funny how you put tens of millions in quotes as if I am wrong yet these people all rely on social programs currently. What would they do without it? I do agree we probably cant bring back tens of millions either, but some is better then bleeding out more. Trump also wants o heavily cut regulations and taxes, which deflates much of what you say here.

I put it in quotes because you implied that Trump's protectionism will bring "tens of millions" of jobs back from China. It won't. I'm not denying that we could use tens of millions of jobs. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree. The small amount of jobs that would return with these policies come at a great cost to everybody who buys things made in China, which is to say, 99.9% of the population, and they hurt the poor the most, as they are the most likely to stretch their dollar the furthest with cheap imported goods.

Agree with this, (although doubt its millions

3.3 to 5.8 million job openings right now depending on which study you look at. The good-paying skilled jobs are closer to the 3 million end, with the rest being entry-level unskilled labor. We could cut the official unemployment number (7.8 million) in half tomorrow if we stopped paying people to not work and motivated them to get a job. Of course we both know the official unemployment number is manipulated way low. Still, 3-5 millions open jobs is nothing to sneeze at. They are out there. I even see them in my tiny town. I know a guy who went from not having a high school diploma to getting his GED and making $15/hour (+ benefits, health insurance, matching retirement, lots of overtime) in less than a year. That company is still hiring.

Actually he does suggest getting rid of several not all of those letter agencies mentioned.

Empty rhetoric. There is a 0% chance of Trump getting rid of any federal agencies. Like Rick Perry, Trump can't consistently remember which agencies he wants to "get rid of." It's just pandering. Heck I'd say there was only ever a 20% chance of President Ron Paul even being able to get rid of any, though he was at least genuine in his intent. It would take decades of reform to get to that point. Probably term limits on congress, axing congressional pensions, and forcing government officials to follow the same laws they pass for the people. But that's still the goal we have to aim for, because the principle holds true: government intervention always serves to concentrate power at the top and limit individual liberty. In education, in taxation, in healthcare, in the economy, in trade. The goal should be to avoid and undo it, not add more.

Trump does talk of getting rid of some of the interventionism we already have though.

Yes, that is about the ONLY thing I agree with Trump on. However, it's not consistent with the things he has said over the last 20 years (applying "hit them hard and take their oil" to just about every conflict and potential conflict that has arisen), so I again have a hard time believing it. I don't trust any other politicians who flip-flop for campaign purposes, so why would I believe Trump is some kind of exception?

Im kinda baffled about what you keep saying when I call many third world nations and such slave labor though. Sure they get to go home at night (well actually lots of people in china have to sleep at work and go home on weekends) but their quality of life is closer to what slaves had then our ow lifestyles. Lov free markets but not free trade across borders with different values and expectations.

The key is that their (the "slave" laborers) quality of life is improving. If your motives are as humanitarian as you make it sound, then you should recognize that slashing trade with such countries will adversely affect the "slave" laborers, not help them. The US buying goods from China has accelerated the improvement of the quality of life there by growing employment and wages much faster, and here by allowing the lower-middle and lower classes here to afford things they never would have been able to afford otherwise. The average person here complaining about China "stealing our jobs" is able to afford a house full of appliances, electronics, and clothes that they would not have if we implemented strong protectionist policies. Even with China "stealing our jobs" the poor here are richer than the middle class in much of Europe.

All around the world, abject poverty, defined as $1/day, has fallen by 80% since 1970. The total number of poor has fallen from 403 million to 152 million. Did this happen because “greedy capitalists” suddenly felt altruism that compelled them to raise wages? Of course not.

According to the World Bank, poverty reductions are attributed to growth resulting from economic liberalization. As markets develop and countries enter into trade, so too do poverty rates decline.

While firms use increasing wage rates to compete in labor markets, government poverty traps have accomplished nothing except more poverty and wasteful spending. According the FRED data, federal expenditures on welfare and social service programs $7.9 billion in 1970 to $187 billion in 2010.

Do these bloated programs alleviate poverty? A working paper at the National Bureau of Economic Research found that program incentives negatively affect family structure, which reduces the likelihood of wage growth. Policy changes in welfare spending, however, increased family earnings.

When government disrupts labor markets, the effects are devastating to low-income, low-skilled labor. Unintended consequences of such interventions are not seen for years to come, thus making them politically expedient.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/BlogRetr ... ectType=55

And here's an interesting article that touches on the failures of protectionist policies in South America, and how reforms implemented by economic advisors who studied under Milton Friedman helped Chile "become South Americans richest people, with the lowest levels of corruption, lowest infant mortality rate and lowest number of people living below the poverty line," while nearby countries that started out in the same boat are maintaining more interventionist and protectionist policies and continuing to sink.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/BlogRetr ... ectType=55

That's it for today, I have to get some real work done so China doesn't swoop in and steal my job

[natsb88]

My response to a PM I received about this thread:

It expanded from just debating about Trump himself to debating about the merits of the policies he's pushing for. Mostly protectionism vs. free trade. I think Trump's stance is way oversimplified and that protectionism has unintended consequences that, at best, cancel out the benefits for the people and serve to concentrate money and control in the government. But I don't think Trump would ever be able to implement what he preaches anyway. And beyond that, I don't think he'll even get elected. So this is all really just an exercise in hypotheticals and I probably shouldn't spend so much time on it

I've actually received several PMs from people who seem to enjoy reading this thread but don't want to jump in the middle of it. I'm glad people like reading reasoned debate, even if they don't want to participate themselves, or even if they don't agree with me

[Treetop]

Yep, Ive debated people all over the net since it was a baby. This is a rare reasoned debate to be sure. Much respect.

[IdahoCopper]

I like that this debate shows respect for everyone's point of view. A rarity on most forums.

[slickeast]

The debate here is better than anything you will hear from Killary and Trump.

[Treetop]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/leake ... upporters/

Guess I had better make the case for protectionism soon. As it turns out soros who we now have leaked email proof can direct hilary on policy has called for international control of the internet so that they can control

private actors’ decisions on“what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.” Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society"

Open society is of course code word for no borders and free trade. If you read the article some parts of the leaked document get rather orwellian as they talk of controlling the internet for NGO speech rights of controlling the net can overcome dictators who want to block such info. As most of you also likely know we reversed a past decision and intend to hand control of the internet over to the UN at the end of this year.

[Treetop]

I put it in quotes because you implied that Trump's protectionism will bring "tens of millions" of jobs back from China. It won't. I'm not denying that we could use tens of millions of jobs. I just think you're barking up the wrong tree. The small amount of jobs that would return with these policies come at a great cost to everybody who buys things made in China, which is to say, 99.9% of the population, and they hurt the poor the most, as they are the most likely to stretch their dollar the furthest with cheap imported goods.

Somehow missed this post the other day. Nope never implied that by itself we could create any set amount of jobs this way. Also I dont agree at all, countries fare much better with protectionism then without. I dont see examples mirroring what you are describing as Ive studied a few dozen nations trying to better understand this topic. In addition to being able to bring back more jobs it also retains those we still have that rent tied to being here.

3.3 to 5.8 million job openings right now depending on which study you look at. The good-paying skilled jobs are closer to the 3 million end, with the rest being entry-level unskilled labor. We could cut the official unemployment number (7.8 million) in half tomorrow if we stopped paying people to not work and motivated them to get a job. Of course we both know the official unemployment number is manipulated way low. Still, 3-5 millions open jobs is nothing to sneeze at. They are out there. I even see them in my tiny town. I know a guy who went from not having a high school diploma to getting his GED and making $15/hour (+ benefits, health insurance, matching retirement, lots of overtime) in less than a year. That company is still hiring.

We have fewer in the workforce then anytime since the late 70s before women were all the way into the workforce. 10s of millions rely on social programs at levels that even if we could sustain is a dangerous trend for a societies longterm future.

Empty rhetoric. There is a 0% chance of Trump getting rid of any federal agencies. Like Rick Perry, Trump can't consistently remember which agencies he wants to "get rid of." It's just pandering. Heck I'd say there was only ever a 20% chance of President Ron Paul even being able to get rid of any, though he was at least genuine in his intent. It would take decades of reform to get to that point. Probably term limits on congress, axing congressional pensions, and forcing government officials to follow the same laws they pass for the people. But that's still the goal we have to aim for, because the principle holds true: government intervention always serves to concentrate power at the top and limit individual liberty. In education, in taxation, in healthcare, in the economy, in trade. The goal should be to avoid and undo it, not add more.

I disagree it is simply empty rhetoric honestly although agree he might not be able to do it. Hes made it clear since his 2000 run he wants to streamline government. I certainly agree we need to get gov out of the way, but despite your insistence protectionism can indeed be used well to even up the playing field. As I will make a case for in more depth soon.

Yes, that is about the ONLY thing I agree with Trump on. However, it's not consistent with the things he has said over the last 20 years (applying "hit them hard and take their oil" to just about every conflict and potential conflict that has arisen), so I again have a hard time believing it. I don't trust any other politicians who flip-flop for campaign purposes, so why would I believe Trump is some kind of exception?

I believe trump a bit more then most because most get into politics as a career, he seems to want to do it to leave a legacy and help his country. His legacy will be horrible if he doesnt atleast try to do as hes claimed. In this way hes set up a different paradigm then most running for office. Obama for instace could just repeat hope and change then fall back to the idea washington steam rolled his agenda even though he had a democrats congress for awhile. Due to the rhetoric of trump if he doesnt get atleast SOME results he will be remembered as a bigger clown then ever. I expect he knows that.

The key is that their (the "slave" laborers) quality of life is improving. If your motives are as humanitarian as you make it sound, then you should recognize that slashing trade with such countries will adversely affect the "slave" laborers, not help them. The US buying goods from China has accelerated the improvement of the quality of life there by growing employment and wages much faster, and here by allowing the lower-middle and lower classes here to afford things they never would have been able to afford otherwise. The average person here complaining about China "stealing our jobs" is able to afford a house full of appliances, electronics, and clothes that they would not have if we implemented strong protectionist policies. Even with China "stealing our jobs" the poor here are richer than the middle class in much of Europe.

I want the best life for everyone out there but care much more about our own nation. Free trade means as their quality of life rises our drops. Which again would be more obvious already if we werent inflated our economy i a range of ways. As a side note china is one of the previously third world nations we now call emerging markets that uses protectionism. I thought it doesnt work? You admit they are getting better. Ahh you point out our poor are wealthier then their middle class but our poor are HEAVILY subsidized in unsustainable ways as is our economy and even dollar. You are comparing apples to oranges here because we cannot sustain most of that even if we tried. We have a long way down to get to current equilibrium let alone if we continue to bleed out more production jobs.

All around the world, abject poverty, defined as $1/day, has fallen by 80% since 1970. The total number of poor has fallen from 403 million to 152 million. Did this happen because “greedy capitalists” suddenly felt altruism that compelled them to raise wages? Of course not.

According to the World Bank, poverty reductions are attributed to growth resulting from economic liberalization. As markets develop and countries enter into trade, so too do poverty rates decline.

Interesting way to phrase this but if you look closer it is First world firms forcing their way into those markets in most cases. In such a way they cant and never will be able to build a real middle class but instead get the jobs I call slave labor because its so drastically much lower then here. The exceptions are the ones that ignored international insistence on free trade mindsets and used protectionism and grew their own capitol, china, south korea and many others. Heck most of the areas forced into that trade liberlization as you call it could have been as well off if their people could simply own a piece of land and raise their own food. In many of those same nations trade liberalization crushed their own agricultures production of staples or depress it leaving them in a more precarious place on that topic and beholden to outsiders and a flowing market that could change if the times change. Although parts of the increasing international take r of ag have been kinda good most of it is not. The good part is international agencies move in and use better knowledge to increase yields, although frankly in ways that in the LONG term are not sustainable such as most of our own farms which slowly build up salt in our fields. Salt in fields has levelled cultures in the past but this is a long term not short term issue. With mindsets like my own work we can keep high yields without the salt build up issue btw. You are speaking of the same world bank who helps keep many nations on their knees btw. Which will be part of the case I make here soon.

And here's an interesting article that touches on the failures of protectionist policies in South America, and how reforms implemented by economic advisors who studied under Milton Friedman helped Chile "become South Americans richest people, with the lowest levels of corruption, lowest infant mortality rate and lowest number of people living below the poverty line," while nearby countries that started out in the same boat are maintaining more interventionist and protectionist policies and continuing to sink.

Pffft that was well beyond any type of protectionist policy I spoke in favor of. Tht wasnt even apples to oranges that was apples to pebbles. The types of practices Im in favor of I will show you soon when I have more times lifted many nations off their knees. I covered the raw stats for south korea already GDP per capita of $79 in 1961 and 30k today. Not a typo literally 79 dollars.

As a side note years back I kept hearing of this agricultural revolution in cuba. That is how the US left billed it or rather believed cubas hype. When I dug deeper the real answer was that the government had decided to allow people to sell on their own which inspired like 5-10% I forget off the top of my head but it was a tiny amount of people who suddenly worked so much harder they overcame the nations food deficit on their own. Then the gov swooped in and took their extra wealth because they were doing to well and insisted that tiny friction had to forever work that hard without that extra wealth since they knew they could. Was reminded of this while reading your last link which frankly had nothing more to do with the context of this conversation then this agriculture story.

[frugi]

I have not read any of anyones replies,, they are all too long. But with that said, I AM voting for Trump, and I am sick to death about hearing from all the never trumpers from every aspect of my life........Ted Cruz is a loser. He LOST.....its over for him, and now his career is wrecked as well because he is a gigantic pussy, and whines like a female dog. Trump will be elected POTUS end of story....Anybody who doesnt like that you had better change your tune, there is NO other alternative.....it is either Trump or Hillary. If you are for hillary than you are a POS, and deserve everything you will get. Unless Trump is elected we are fuct forever. With that said, I know what hillary will do with supreme court nominations, I have no idea what Trump would do..... I have no choice but to vote for Trump and hope he doesnt turn out to be a tyrant like Obama and Hillary.

[Treetop]

You know Nate, after reading your link on Chile, and your response to what I said about Japan I have to conclude we arent even talking about the same things at all. You seem to link a whole range of actions in with the type of protectionism I have been advocating. Then insisting protecting industry is unproven and a failure when it isnt. You used Japan as proof protectionist policy fails when Japans case proves the exact opposite. They over extended themselves and have a shrinking workforce, but their industry grew immensely and blossomed and provided work for their population and wealth. Then use chiles case as proof free markets work when they went from a dictatorship to having a population finally able to work for themselves a bit. Of course allowing free enterprise is better then a total dictatorship. You are conflating issues that have nothing to do with what I was advocating. You even mentioned how the people of china are doing much better then their past apparently not realizing it is a highly protectionist nation, that goes so far as to control their currencies value and suppressing wages so they can undercut everyone. On top of their tariffs for a wide range of imported goods.

It also leaves me wondering if you think Obamas tire tariff has anything to do with my stance? It doesnt if that wasnt clear. He put a tariff on a specific nation which did lower imports from there but the void wasnt filled by US production because it simply came in from other nations instead. A similar thing has went on with solar panels. Maybe this is why you keep mentioning trade with china as if that was all I was concerned about? Ive watched a large portion of Trumps speeches, he mentions china and mexico most often but hes said nothing to suggest to me that is his only concerns either.

anyway have been to busy working on a fence the last few days to make the expanded case I intend to on protectionist nations, but I still will be doing it soon. Well before the election. Have to say though as much as is coming out on hillary Im baffled how any right leaning person could say trump is only slightly better then her even if you held to your values and vote your favorite third party instead of against her. That said if there was ever a time to vote lesser evil once in your voting career this is it imo.

[johnbrickner]

. . . If you are for hillary than you are a POS, and deserve everything you will get . . .

I have no choice . . .

What is a POS? oh, piece of shat. NM. Had to write it down to get it. My apologies everyone for not getting it quicker.

Of course, if one votes for Trump and he wins do they not also deserve everything they will get?

If one is aware enough to realize they do not have a choice are they "forced" to vote they way they do? Forced to vote the way they do? Hummm, so does that mean everyone who is voting the lesser of two evils is being coerced to vote? If so, sounds more like fascist democracy to me.

[Thogey]

Wow there are a lot of pieces of $hit in the USA. Including my MOM!.
I do disagree with her, but I'm not sure she crosses the piece of $hit threshold.

You must be pretty tough frugi. If I were for Hillary and someone said that to me, there is a strong possibility one or both of us would wind up in jail or the hospital. BTW jail does not scare me like hospitals do, lots of men are the same way. But this is the internet so I guess you are safe from any Hillary supporters. I'll bet there are some big ones (250lbs +) in St louis who are not bothered by jail.

Maybe you should put a sign up in your shop that says. "If you are for Hillary than you are a piece of $hit". With a hidden camera of course. That would make a great youtube!

[natsb88]

Rabid pro-Trump, anti-everybody-else statements like what Frugi posted are precisely what fuel the anti-Trump crowd. The more you try to force it, the more they will resist. That over-the-top attitude sparks new resistance that wasn't there before, and motivates those who already oppose Trump to become even louder. I have found this type of Trump supporter to drive away more potential Trump voters than they recruit. If Trump is so great, provide specific examples of policy that will improve the life of the potential voter you are trying to convince, without just defaulting to the non-argument that everything will be worse under Hillary. When you tell the voter, "if you don't agree with me and do what I say you should do, you are a piece of sh-t," you ensure that they will in fact NOT do what you want them to do, and will probably do the opposite.

Treetop - in the face of examples of countries with protectionist policies that are in financial distress or ruin, you deny the protectionist policies had anything to do with it. In counties with protectionist policies that have a middle class (unsustainable though it may be), you credit protectionist policies with creating it. In reality there are countless other variables at play, but it's clear you have singled out protectionism, and have decided that such policies only have a positive impact, and that any negative outcomes are the fault of something else. Nobody is going to convince you that Trump's plan won't work. You decided it will, and everywhere you look you are interpreting data only to support what you already believe.

Fundamentally it boils down to this: we both know that our spending is unsustainable and that our middle class is living beyond its means. You are advocating for increased government intervention in the markets to prop up that unsustainable lifestyle. I am opposed to that route of action, and would like to remove as much existing market intervention as possible. Even if protectionist policies have created a sustainable middle class elsewhere with no ill effects (I have seen no evidence to support this), that does not mean it is the right policy for the United States, which is supposed to have minimal government and free markets. You and I have some fundamental differences in what the role of government ought to be. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

[frugi]

Of course, if one votes for Trump and he wins do they not also deserve everything they will get?

YES 100%. I take responsibility for my actions.

If one is aware enough to realize they do not have a choice are they "forced" to vote they way they do? Forced to vote the way they do? Hummm, so does that mean everyone who is voting the lesser of two evils is being coerced to vote? If so, sounds more like fascist democracy to me.

On one side we have someone who has said they will do all they can to do away with portions of the US Constitution that they disagree with.........On the other side, we have someone who has NOT publicly stated that they intend to do away with portions of the US Constitution that they do not agree with..... One person is a tyrant. One person is not a tyrant. To defend my country from enemies domestic and abroad, in order to preserve my future generations freedoms I am FORCED to vote.

Wow there are a lot of pieces of $hit in the USA. Including my MOM!.
I do disagree with her, but I'm not sure she crosses the piece of $hit threshold.

Anybody who votes for someone and fully knows the consequences of their actions are pieces of shiit. How can someone vote away civil rights in exchange for free stuff.....Hillary supporters are the worst of the worst. Only perhaps Obama supporters are worse....likened to that of Hitler supporters and Nazi's. Our country is in real freakin trouble, and there are too many numbed zombies walking that are only thinking of themselves. So, maybe you should have some heart to heart discussion with your mom about the 2nd amendment, and supreme court nominations. I know I would if that was my mom. (My mom understands what is at stake this election year).

You must be pretty tough frugi.

I am not tough at all. In fact I am puny, overweight, small framed, weak kneed, and dont like the sight of blood. Sometimes though it does not matter how big you are. Sometimes you need to stand up for what is right, no matter the consequences. I, honestly believe we are in the last 20 years of the USA's existence unless something changes. War is coming. It may not be for a few years, or it might be in 2017, who knows. I am confident in my beliefs, and that is all I care about.

Maybe you should put a sign up in your shop that says. "If you are for Hillary than you are a piece of $hit". With a hidden camera of course. That would make a great youtube!

You think is funny? You think this is a game. Something to post on youtube? I live in reality. This is no laughing matter.

[frugi]

Rabid pro-Trump, anti-everybody-else statements like what Frugi posted are precisely what fuel the anti-Trump crowd. The more you try to force it, the more they will resist.

I was never that guy. What changed was Ted Cruz losing. When Ted Cruz pulled out is when I STARTED BEING ATTACKED ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE, BY EMAIL, ON MY TWITTER, MY INSTAGRAM,...... THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FOR HILLARY AND ARE NOT FOR TRUMP HIJACK EVERY SOCIAL PAGE I HAVE WITH LIES AND PROPAGANDA..... I am sick to death with all of this BS, and evil. The people who push hate have an agenda. I talk this way because we are at the end. Time to draw lines in the sand. I dont care if I push you away. Maybe you deserve it. I am not trying to talk up Trump. I am simply stating over and over again,....if you are that person that focuses on bashing Trump, with no other solution you are a POS. and your actions could lead to the end of our freedoms..... chew on that. We are at a crossroads. It is one way or the other. One will win and one will lose. I will state again if you are a hillary or obama supporter get out while you still can. If this scares you, and you feelings are hurt...good. Leave.

FOR ME THIS COMES DOWN TO EITHER:

YOU ARE FOR TRUMP AND THE US CONSTITUTION.

OR

YOU ARE FOR HILLARY AND CARE ONLY ABOUT YOURSELF, AND ARE THE ENEMY....MIGHT AS WELL BE ISIS!!!!