As an aside, could you give an example of a favorable trade deal negotiated by two governments over an unfavorable trade deal negotiated by two governments? What would that look like? What makes it more favorable?
Wow — Trump just literally sent a message to the whole world
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
As an aside, could you give an example of a favorable trade deal negotiated by two governments over an unfavorable trade deal negotiated by two governments? What would that look like? What makes it more favorable?
Okay, so you are an unyielding idealog. Duly noted. At this point any further conversation would be as productive as me talking to a tree.
Reminder:
Mitt Romney, Mark Cuban, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, and @syskatine promised the opposite of this if we elected Trump.
Mitt Romney, Mark Cuban, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, and @syskatine promised the opposite of this if we elected Trump.
No, I emphatically disagree with that statement, and I have shown multiple times why. I "condemn" the notion of government imposed trade deals, period. I say any government imposed "trade deal" is not beneficial for either side. Tit for tat government responses to each other is bad policy.
Calling your opponent names does nothing to buttress your case. You have not once explained how Trump (or our government) is looking out for American interests by negotiating with other governments in what he believes is our behalf. I have repeatedly asked you to make your case. You have repeatedly refused to do so. It's not really a situation where we have nothing more to discuss. Up to this point we haven't discussed anything. Up to this point I have presented my side of a discussion and you have replied with generalities that amount to emotional appeal and insults. I would love to hear your side of the argument. You only have to make it. I will respond with respect and civility. At that point we could actually have a discussion.
I'll mediate this one.
@Ostatedchi , In what way can current trade agreements be changed to become more favorable for the US?
@Ponca Dan , Do you consider threatening tariffs with the end goal of lower overall global tariffs to be acceptable?
@Ostatedchi , In what way can current trade agreements be changed to become more favorable for the US?
@Ponca Dan , Do you consider threatening tariffs with the end goal of lower overall global tariffs to be acceptable?
Once again you have spammed a thread that has nothing to do with the discussion taking place.
Nope, not going to even try because you are a self avowed idealog. What good would further conversation do? Would anything I could ever say convince you to change your mind? I seriously doubt it.
SO... as such, I'm not going to partake in an exercise in futility. Just as I won't engage Clinton on any real topical debate.
SO... as such, I'm not going to partake in an exercise in futility. Just as I won't engage Clinton on any real topical debate.
Almost all public figures critizing Trump’s trade agreement strategies and negotiation tactics, are on record predicting economic ruin if we elected him.
The opposite has happened with the economy, at least so far. And it seems to make you rather unhappy.
Tricky question! Lower tariffs are always preferable. Threatening to harm American citizens if our trading partners don't quit harming theirs is a backassward way of achieving your stated goal. If it worked I would applaud it. But what short term costs would ensue? How much damage to the world's economy would have to take place before the governments took hold of their senses and reduced/eliminated their tariffs? A far better way of resolving the situation is for America to adopt a free market, tariff free trading stance, regardless of what our trading partners do. As they saw tremendous economic development in our country, as they witness a flood of foreign investment in our country, as they see the American citizen becoming increasingly wealthy compared to themselves, one would hope our trading partners would decide to adopt a trading system of freedom. But even if they dig in their heels and go completely authoritarian with their citizens, the US would still prosper.
I applaud Trump for his deregulation, his tax reform, his court appointments. Two thumbs up, great job, atta' boy, standing ovation!
I disagree with him on many if not most of his foreign affair policies: immigration and foreign trade being the two most prominent.
You cite "public figures" (mostly politicians and their sycophants) as examples of misguided thinking. I have cited people whose careers have involved detailed study of economic policies and their effects both good and bad. The people you cite are in the business of whoring for votes in an effort to gain political power over the rest of us. I disagree with their motives, methods and calculations almost universally. The people I cite attempt to take an objective, "scientific" look at things and make recommendations accordingly. Apples and oranges.
Is this a reply to me? Where in this thread have I called myself an ideologue? You're the one throwing that taunt around. I have said I would love to hear your side of the argument. I will listen and respond with respect. Can you only have a conversation with someone if you are convinced they will change their mind and join you in your perspective? Civil discussion with a philosophical opponent is not possible with you? Only one side, your opponent, can have his mind changed; you cannot? That's a pretty sad existence! I'm disappointed because I was looking forward to hearing what constructive things you have to say.
That's patronizing crap and you know it. Your mind is made up. There's nothing I could post that would waver your belief in your stance. As such, I'm not going to try. It would just be an endless IF/Then loop with no resolution. Yeah you'd love to hear my side of the argument. So you'd have a chance to slice it and dice it at your leisure. I'm not going to give you that entertainment. You can have that masturbatory conversion with yourself.
But when you say things like...
Then you expose yourself as an ideologue - regardless if you label it as such.
Now... I'm truly done with this thread. I'm not getting baited into another response. Not going to do it.
To change or soften their ideology or possibly even learn from it. If someone's ideology is that all trade deals are bad, then yes it is fruitless to say, "oh, what about this trade deal, is this bad" or "what if the trade deal brings jobs back to America?" But you might find some fruit probing the ideologue on why he insists all trade deals are bad.
It seems like you are arguing (forgive me for making this overly simplistic for the sake of brevity): "Trump is good on trade because he is making these good trade deals"
And Ponca Dan is insisting: "there is no such thing as a good trade deal, because I believe that free markets are optimal"
Your ground is that 1) Even under his free market ideology it is possible to make trade deals move the world closer to a state of free markets and 2) free markets are not optimal.
I'm not saying it will work, because it relies on the person you are having a discussion with to discuss in good faith. But just because some one is an ideologue doesn't mean they can't have discussions in good faith.
Yes, you’re citing technocrats — they exist on both the right and left.
In the world of global “free trade” policies and agreements, there’s been almost no distinction between the “right” and “left” on trade before Trump — they all go to Davos, and they all have the exact same talking points — doesn’t matter whether they’re on the “right” or “left.”
Remember: Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan **all** supported TPP (and so did every other major western leader across the so-called political spectrum). TPP made NAFTA look like peanuts. We really dodged a bullet with avoiding TPP.
Trump and the American voters have greatly f*cked up their long-held plans for world government. Even worse, Trump is achieving outstanding economic results.
You slightly misrepresent my syllogism. Reverse it actually. My argument is that free trade markets are optimal. Therefore government intervention in the mutual free trade between willing partners is not necessary, and is often counterproductive.
I am not an ideologue in the sense that ostatedchi implies. From the standpoint of philosophical foundations I am an ideologue: political liberty of the individual is the top priority, really the only priority. From a "reality" standpoint I accept any policy that advances society toward that goalpost. When a policy advances society in the opposite direction I oppose it. I love nothing more than discussing such tenets with people. Will I change my mind on my foundational principle? Not in a million years. But that does not preclude me from listening to differing points of view and seeing if they may be integrated into mine.
I appreciate your post! It was a voice of reason.
Technocrats, that's rich! I doubt a single economist from the Austrian School has ever been invited to Davos. Mont Pelerin Society is their thing. As proponents of small government - and for many of them no government - it is ludicrous for you to link them to one world tyrants. Sometimes you would be better served if you actually knew what you are talking about.Yes, you’re citing technocrats — they exist on both the right and left.
In the world of global “free trade” policies and agreements, there’s been almost no distinction between the “right” and “left” on trade before Trump — they all go to Davos, and they all have the exact same talking points — doesn’t matter whether they’re on the “right” or “left.”
Remember: Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan **all** supported TPP (and so did every other major western leader across the so-called political spectrum). TPP made NAFTA look like peanuts. We really dodged a bullet with avoiding TPP.
Trump and the American voters have greatly f*cked up their long-held plans for world government. Even worse, Trump is achieving outstanding economic results.
Actually I'm not saying that Trump is making good trade deals or not. I don't know enough about the specifics of the negotiations to make an informed decision. Also that's outside of my expertise so I wouldn't have a qualified opinion. What I'm saying is that as long as there are going to be trade deals with other governments; then, it is the responsibility of the President to negotiate the best deal possible for America. Period. Furthermore, anyone trying to spin those negotiations as a negative is doing so with an axe to grind.
There can't be a good faith discussion with someone if you don't even agree on the foundational principles of the conversation. That's why I'm out.
Here you go NZ. This is the organization of technocrats to which I refer. Do you see any one world government technocrats there?
https://mises.org/library/dream-mont-pelerin-society
All I am saying is that if you disagree with some one on the foundational principles then that's where the interesting ground for discussion is.
I don't know what possessed Mark Perry to align his website, carpediem, with aei. But he is about as far removed from advocating for war as a person can get. I am linking to Mark Perry, not aei.The Austrian School don’t seem to be one world government (and I don’t think you personally are, I’ve said that to you before).
But the AEI you regularly cite were some of the “intellectual” architects of the Iraq war — a utopian war (“spreading freedom”) that was sold to the American people.
The AEI is closely aligned with the psychopathic Iraq war architect, Bill Kristol.....son of Trotskyist (and “Godfather of Neoconservatism”) Irving Kristol.
Economics sometimes makes for strange bedfellows when it comes to foreign policy.
