Ponca Dan Continues To Beat A Dead Horse
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Perhaps most troubling:
https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/01/europe-trump-want-trade-war-youll-get-one/
https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/01/europe-trump-want-trade-war-youll-get-one/
Ponca, is the goal of the president to ensure good paying jobs for all Americans or ensure they can get the most stuff as cheap as possible? That's the difference between fair trade and free trade. I know you believe in complete free trade and want to beat that dead horse. But there is room in the middle, and its not like he's gone full protectionist. He's simply targeted two areas (Washing Machines and Solar Panels) where there have been CLEAR fair trade imbalances and its has actually cost America good manufacturing jobs.
Edit: I'd even add that those tariffs are time constrained and reduce in impact over the next few years (5% per year I believe). Also I'd note that just about every president does exactly this. They target a couple of industries and use tariffs to boost them. Obama did it with Chinese tires. Bush put a tariff on steel prior to that. (2nd Edit: Neither of these individuals started a trade war due to an isolated tariff. That's simply rhetoric to rile up the anti-Trump base.)
Edit: I'd even add that those tariffs are time constrained and reduce in impact over the next few years (5% per year I believe). Also I'd note that just about every president does exactly this. They target a couple of industries and use tariffs to boost them. Obama did it with Chinese tires. Bush put a tariff on steel prior to that. (2nd Edit: Neither of these individuals started a trade war due to an isolated tariff. That's simply rhetoric to rile up the anti-Trump base.)
As the Forbes article says, that's the hope, that Trump is just trying to satisfy the kooky economic element of his base with a quick, time-released tariff. That's the hope. Unfortunately there are strong rumors that steel will be next. At that point the war will probably be engaged. The goal of the President, by the way, should be to insure that all individuals are free to pursue their own ends without interference. It should not be the job of any government or government official to ensure jobs of any kind. That's asking for something that is impossible.
Last edited:
Did we have a trade war when Bush tariffed steel? if he starts tariffing everything then I'll change positions. But postulating because its Trump (vs. any prior president) just demonstrates the anti-Trump bias that exists. I'd note that Forbes (the same magazine) wrote a fluff article when Obama raised tariffs. Didn't take a position but instead said: "The president faces a conundrum" and never made mention of trade wars (https://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/us-china-trade-business-china-tires.html#70f72dfd87fb). But Trump does 2 very specific and limited tariff enactments and the media is up in arms. If nothing else, read the 2009 article and re-read the ones you posted. Can you honestly tell me that they have the same message?
Here’s one media reaction to Obama’s tariff from September, 2009.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/09/obamas_new_protectionism_comments.html
Lo and behold! From CNN no less!
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html
Last edited:
Isn't it funny how when Obama did tariffs it was good for the American people. But when Trump does tariffs, its bad. I'm not sure I could demonstrate media bias any more clearly.
Edit: Read the CNN article. Its actually 'fair & balanced'. It has a quote from a Republican and a rebuttle from the White House. States that it protects American workers yet exposes Americans to higher overall prices. It's actually a good article. Too bad the current president can't get articles that read like this and offer the news without driving a particular side.
Edit: Read the CNN article. Its actually 'fair & balanced'. It has a quote from a Republican and a rebuttle from the White House. States that it protects American workers yet exposes Americans to higher overall prices. It's actually a good article. Too bad the current president can't get articles that read like this and offer the news without driving a particular side.
The point made by every one of the articles is that tariffs are bad. They have negative unintended consequences, consequences that are usually hidden from view. They appeal to "low information" citizens, which makes them very attractive to politicians. They serve to grow the strength and repressive ability of government agents. It is not possible to avoid "driving a particular side" when discussing this subject. You are either for free markets, or you aren't. This is not a discussion about Trump. It's about a bad policy he wants to implement. To be honest I was shocked when I read the CNN article. But to your last contention the CNN article, which you agree was "balanced," was published during Trump's tenure.
