8 ms·

So why not free trade? I hate the idea of tariffs, but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs something needs to be done. I think all of this would

So why not free trade? I hate the idea of tariffs, but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs something needs to be done. I think all of this would go away if all tariffs against US products were removed

endorphone 8y ago
Do you think the US plays by free trade? Intellectual property rights/copyright laws, both linchpins of US policy, are the very definition of government intervention. The US aerospace and manufacturing industry is overwhelmingly subsidized by the military complex, a lot of it done under the auspices of "national security". For the US to complain about Airbus or Bombardier is simply incredible. US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment, but the notion that that the US is trying to play fair is simply incredible. The US loses at the US-created WTO time and time again (see: Canadian softwood) and simply ignores the rulings. "but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs" I don't know what example you're thinking of, but let's consider the case of Canada (a country that the US has a trade surplus with). Canada has supply management for dairy to ensure a supply that matches demand to ensure food security. To protect this, Canada applies a high tariff for imports above the quota. "So unfair to US farmers!" yells Trump. Only here's the problem with his ignorant, easily swayed vision. Canada exports less dairy to the US than vice versa. Like, 1/2 as much. The whole point of supply management is that it doesn't generate an excess, and for that small industry the exports and imports are generally only for very specialized things. US dairy, in contrast, is hugely subsidized. To the tune of 74% of US dairy income comes, directly and indirectly, from the US government (0% in Canada comes from the government). Hence US farmers grossly overproduce and then look to dump it elsewhere, destroying production elsewhere. Just as US corn production is essentially a government enterprise, flooding the world with corn by-products and HFCSs. Who is the villain here? Trump can rattle off some scary number to his clueless fans (I'd steer clear of the pejoratives, but given that Trump is a lifetime grifter and con man, whose virtually every statement is an outrageous lie, it is incredible that someone can be called his fan), but Canada has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with those poor American farmers. It certainly isn't Canadian milk on American shelves causing their ills, because Canadian milk isn't on their shelves. Nor did China cause the US poor to live in such dire straights. This is just the latest example of the US becoming more and more polarized, while convincing the poorest that it's always some external reason why they live in destitution in the richest nation on Earth.
- frockington 8y ago
  I don't think the US plays fair either. I think everyone should play fair. Domestic subsidies I don't personally care about as it should be up to each country to deal with internally.
- imglorp 8y ago
  Don't forget fossil fuel subsidies. Around $20B/year but the dollar cost is only part of the destruction here. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies
- raverbashing 8y ago
  > US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment Yeah, corn. That's why everything is HFCS heavy in the US. And I do mean everything. Things that didn't need to have so much sugar like bread, ketchup, other sauces, soup, etc. It's easier to get it than to avoid it. And american's health suffer for it.
  - gbacon 8y ago
    Be thankful that you’re getting your bread and soup ration for today, citizen.
justin66 8y ago
> So why not free trade? Every country involved has industries which won't allow this. For example, all the countries in the G8 have agricultural sectors which will not allow elimination of trade barriers. So, even if you want "free trade," you start with each country's list of stuff where there is not going to be free trade, and move forward from there.
- frockington 8y ago
  I agree its not going to happen. I like your idea of a starting point though
  - justin66 8y ago
    It's not really my idea, it's what the larger countries basically did starting in the eighties and early nineties when free trade ideology was quite strong, leading up to the creation of the WTO and EU and so on and so forth. What you see today is the evolution of that starting point that you like...
ska 8y ago
So you believe that the US is a victim of protectionism in these countries without having protectionism of it's own? That's a pretty hard position to back with evidence. For example US farm subsidies are significant and supply management is common in many areas, but the rhetoric around Canadian dairy supply management recently has been amplified far beyond even it's wildest possible impact. And this with a country with extraordinarily balanced trade, if anything probably a deficit. The history of trade between the two countries is littered with spats about US protecting this, Canada protecting that, but on the whole very balanced. Pretending otherwise may make for good politics (i guess that remains to be seen) but it isn't based on evidence or good policy work.
- frockington 8y ago
  I believe nobody should have tariffs. Understanding that is never going to happen, it should at least be a starting ppoint
  - cdumler 8y ago
    I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Therefore, tariffs are always a balancing act between being nice to our friends and ensuring we keep some level of production available.
    - fizgig 8y ago
      Wouldn't strategic reserves be a solution to this? Hoard enough to cover ramp-up time for domestic production.
      - benrbray 8y ago
        Food spoils and we can't predict how long a war will last.
singularity2001 8y ago
Oh, that's the game? Trump wants an argument to later push again for those horrible secret «free trade deals» which would have undermined European politics, consumer-safety, ecological standards and democracy itself? (TTIP and co)
graeme 8y ago
I don't understand this position. Free trade would be nice, so let's make the furthest thing from free trade by adding tariffs? The only time the president mentioned lower tariffs was an offhand comment at the G7. All of his other positions imply he disagrees with you and thinks trade is bad.

endorphone 8y ago

Do you think the US plays by free trade? Intellectual property rights/copyright laws, both linchpins of US policy, are the very definition of government intervention. The US aerospace and manufacturing industry is overwhelmingly subsidized by the military complex, a lot of it done under the auspices of "national security". For the US to complain about Airbus or Bombardier is simply incredible. US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment, but the notion that that the US is trying to play fair is simply incredible. The US loses at the US-created WTO time and time again (see: Canadian softwood) and simply ignores the rulings. "but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs" I don't know what example you're thinking of, but let's consider the case of Canada (a country that the US has a trade surplus with). Canada has supply management for dairy to ensure a supply that matches demand to ensure food security. To protect this, Canada applies a high tariff for imports above the quota. "So unfair to US farmers!" yells Trump. Only here's the problem with his ignorant, easily swayed vision. Canada exports less dairy to the US than vice versa. Like, 1/2 as much. The whole point of supply management is that it doesn't generate an excess, and for that small industry the exports and imports are generally only for very specialized things. US dairy, in contrast, is hugely subsidized. To the tune of 74% of US dairy income comes, directly and indirectly, from the US government (0% in Canada comes from the government). Hence US farmers grossly overproduce and then look to dump it elsewhere, destroying production elsewhere. Just as US corn production is essentially a government enterprise, flooding the world with corn by-products and HFCSs. Who is the villain here? Trump can rattle off some scary number to his clueless fans (I'd steer clear of the pejoratives, but given that Trump is a lifetime grifter and con man, whose virtually every statement is an outrageous lie, it is incredible that someone can be called his fan), but Canada has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with those poor American farmers. It certainly isn't Canadian milk on American shelves causing their ills, because Canadian milk isn't on their shelves. Nor did China cause the US poor to live in such dire straights. This is just the latest example of the US becoming more and more polarized, while convincing the poorest that it's always some external reason why they live in destitution in the richest nation on Earth.

frockington 8y ago
I don't think the US plays fair either. I think everyone should play fair. Domestic subsidies I don't personally care about as it should be up to each country to deal with internally.
imglorp 8y ago
Don't forget fossil fuel subsidies. Around $20B/year but the dollar cost is only part of the destruction here. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies
raverbashing 8y ago
> US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment Yeah, corn. That's why everything is HFCS heavy in the US. And I do mean everything. Things that didn't need to have so much sugar like bread, ketchup, other sauces, soup, etc. It's easier to get it than to avoid it. And american's health suffer for it.
- gbacon 8y ago
  Be thankful that you’re getting your bread and soup ration for today, citizen.

justin66 8y ago

> So why not free trade? Every country involved has industries which won't allow this. For example, all the countries in the G8 have agricultural sectors which will not allow elimination of trade barriers. So, even if you want "free trade," you start with each country's list of stuff where there is not going to be free trade, and move forward from there.

frockington 8y ago
I agree its not going to happen. I like your idea of a starting point though
- justin66 8y ago
  It's not really my idea, it's what the larger countries basically did starting in the eighties and early nineties when free trade ideology was quite strong, leading up to the creation of the WTO and EU and so on and so forth. What you see today is the evolution of that starting point that you like...

ska 8y ago

So you believe that the US is a victim of protectionism in these countries without having protectionism of it's own? That's a pretty hard position to back with evidence. For example US farm subsidies are significant and supply management is common in many areas, but the rhetoric around Canadian dairy supply management recently has been amplified far beyond even it's wildest possible impact. And this with a country with extraordinarily balanced trade, if anything probably a deficit. The history of trade between the two countries is littered with spats about US protecting this, Canada protecting that, but on the whole very balanced. Pretending otherwise may make for good politics (i guess that remains to be seen) but it isn't based on evidence or good policy work.

frockington 8y ago
I believe nobody should have tariffs. Understanding that is never going to happen, it should at least be a starting ppoint
- cdumler 8y ago
  I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Therefore, tariffs are always a balancing act between being nice to our friends and ensuring we keep some level of production available.
  - fizgig 8y ago
    Wouldn't strategic reserves be a solution to this? Hoard enough to cover ramp-up time for domestic production.
    - benrbray 8y ago
      Food spoils and we can't predict how long a war will last.

singularity2001 8y ago

Oh, that's the game? Trump wants an argument to later push again for those horrible secret «free trade deals» which would have undermined European politics, consumer-safety, ecological standards and democracy itself? (TTIP and co)

graeme 8y ago

I don't understand this position. Free trade would be nice, so let's make the furthest thing from free trade by adding tariffs? The only time the president mentioned lower tariffs was an offhand comment at the G7. All of his other positions imply he disagrees with you and thinks trade is bad.