US politics general thread

[greg0205]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Perfect.

 

[Xarog]

Perfect.

So to sum up, you don't actually have any counter to the position I've laid out other than some allusion to a bet. When called on it you spout off incoherent nonsense, and the fact that it is incoherent is the ultimate virtue of the sentiment itself.

And all this while you don't even have the courage to pony up to the bet yourself. Yeah man, you're really looking like a rockstar right now.

 

[rietrot]

I think if you're of the opinion that trade wars are easy, you're in the Trump camp. If you can't imagine fallout from a trade war, you're in the Trump camp... Ryan is in Ryan's camp and it's furnished by Koch money.

There are other, valid opinions, where real concerns are raised, but none of those are reflected by Trump's tariff plan or Ryan's hypocrisy.

Trade wars are easy and essential to the free market. We need competition on price. Otherwise China wins and the West lose. It also isn't a new thing or Trumps idea, but it is good that Trump is waking the people up to reality.

I don't even consider trade wars like described here a war at all. Just healthy competition.

 

[Cray]

I don't even consider trade wars like described here a war at all. Just healthy competition.

TIL that putting protectionist tariffs on imported goods is considered healthy competition....:erm:

 

[rietrot]

TIL that putting protectionist tariffs on imported goods is considered healthy competition....:erm:

Yeah especially if you consider it is also the countries competing and not just the manufacturers. If China can subsidise and give loans to their steel industry the US can also do that or just impose import tariffs on steel to give their own industry a fair shot. I even expect them to do more than that and favour their own people. That is healthy competition on a global and local scale.

 

[konfab]

Trade wars are easy and essential to the free market. We need competition on price. Otherwise China wins and the West lose. It also isn't a new thing or Trumps idea, but it is good that Trump is waking the people up to reality.

That is the misnomer that defines the world's current economic state. China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.
The West generally does not have a free market either because the state has created laws protecting "workers rights", which distort the price of the goods.

TIL that putting protectionist tariffs on imported goods is considered healthy competition....:erm:

You think that $15 minimum wage idea that Comrade Sanders wants isn't just as protectionist? Or protecting striking workers isn't exactly the same type of protectionism?

To both of you:
Healthy competition implies that all parties are playing with the same rules. That is what should be the basis of a trade agreement. On things like labour laws and government interference in the economy, there is no free market at play between China and the US. Which is why Trump is correct with his tariffs.

The caveat to this, is the US should be using its influence to try and get some reciprocity on the laws. For example, I see no reason why prospective trade deals should not include some sort of reciprocity of labour laws. South Africa for example has reasonable protection of workers rights for example, therefore our workers are not really being exploited when we can make steel cheaper than the US.
This type of thinking should be pretty bipartisan as it is both free market and pro-worker.

 

[saturnz]

That is the misnomer that defines the world's current economic state. China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.
The West generally does not have a free market either because the state has created laws protecting "workers rights", which distort the price of the goods.

there are no free markets because of central banks, both in the east and the west

if you control the lending rate (not a free market price) then you effectively control debt which fuels everything

 

[rietrot]

That is the misnomer that defines the world's current economic state. China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.
The West generally does not have a free market either because the state has created laws protecting "workers rights", which distort the price of the goods.

Who is competing against who? China compete against the US
Workers in the US compete against each other.
For a manufacturer in a certain area to be competitive globally it needs the support from its government. On a global level we have a free market exept for the occasional sanctions and trade embargoes.

 

[konfab]

there are no free markets because of central banks , both in the east and the west

if you control the lending rate (not a free market price) then you effectively control debt which fuels everything

Not that I am a fan of centralized banking, but that statement is not really true. In South Africa for example, the lending rate is set to control inflation, which then effectively makes it part of the free market rather than being in control of it.

The lowering of economic freedom of the world's economy rather comes from state interference in the economy. Central banks form part of this, but are by no means the only reason. Taxation, welfare, property rights, labour laws are all just as part of the equation.

 

[Unhappy438]

You think that $15 minimum wage idea that Comrade Sanders wants isn't just as protectionist? Or protecting striking workers isn't exactly the same type of protectionism?

Why are we whatabouting Sanders? Fact is tariffs are the opposite of free trade or free market, just another nail in the conservative coffin.

 

[konfab]

Who is competing against who? China compete against the US
Workers in the US compete against each other.

A group of workers in the US is competing against the group of workers in China.

The workers in the China are allowed to be exploited by their employers. The workers in the US are not.

For a manufacturer in a certain area to be competitive globally it needs the support from its government.

The only support the government needs to provide is to create a pro-business environment for companies to grow. Things like property rights and low taxation are things that foster economic competition.

The only thing government should really be doing is making sure that when there is international competition, it that it is fair competition. So if South Africa has a minimum wage and labour laws, it should only allow free trade between countries that have some sort of similar policies. That is actual free trade. Countries that don't follow these basic guidelines can trade, but they have a tariff to compensate for their exploitative practices. Elsewise, South Africa should ditch the labour laws for that sector of the economy.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't help anyone.

 

[saturnz]

Not that I am a fan of centralized banking, but that statement is not really true. In South Africa for example, the lending rate is set to control inflation, which then effectively makes it part of the free market rather than being in control of it.

The lowering of economic freedom of the world's economy rather comes from state interference in the economy. Central banks form part of this, but are by no means the only reason. Taxation, welfare, property rights, labour laws are all just as part of the equation.

inflation is just theft by the bank, sort of like controlling the temperature the frog is boiled at

its exactly the reason markets are not free, since banks control prices through inflation as well

 

[konfab]

Why are we whatabouting Sanders? Fact is tariffs are the opposite of free trade or free market, just another nail in the conservative coffin.

They are both economic protectionism, so it isn't a whataboutism. Did you miss this part?

That is the misnomer that defines the world's current economic state. China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.
The West generally does not have a free market either because the state has created laws protecting "workers rights", which distort the price of the goods.

 

[Xarog]

That is the misnomer that defines the world's current economic state. China does not have a free market because their government plays games with their currency and heavily controls their economy.
The West generally does not have a free market either because the state has created laws protecting "workers rights", which distort the price of the goods.

No market is a free market by these standards. Every market that exists can only do so while the security of the participants is more or less guaranteed, and this requires the rule of law to be put in place as an institution, and the government must fund itself somehow in order to ensure the rule of law actually comes into being.

More to the point, input costs are not identical all across the board. We don't have the same quality of coal available to the US, for instance. Local inequalities exist that have to be taken into account if one wants to protect one's domestic economy against the potential advantages available to people who compete against you in bad faith (i.e. those who attempt to set up a parasitic rather than mutualistic relationship).

You think that $15 minimum wage idea that Comrade Sanders wants isn't just as protectionist? Or protecting striking workers isn't exactly the same type of protectionism?

Yup and yup.

To both of you:
Healthy competition implies that all parties are playing with the same rules. That is what should be the basis of a trade agreement. On things like labour laws and government interference in the economy, there is no free market at play between China and the US. Which is why Trump is correct with his tariffs.

Fair trade is superior to free trade.

The caveat to this, is the US should be using its influence to try and get some reciprocity on the laws. For example, I see no reason why prospective trade deals should not include some sort of reciprocity of labour laws. South Africa for example has reasonable protection of workers rights for example, therefore our workers are not really being exploited when we can make steel cheaper than the US.
This type of thinking should be pretty bipartisan as it is both free market and pro-worker.

Isn't that what Trump appears to be doing?

 

[Unhappy438]

They are both economic protectionism, so it isn't a whataboutism. Did you miss this part?

It was a textbook case of whataboutism, and no i didn't miss that part. What you forgot to add was these tariffs will be a further step away from the free trade. Not that im overly fazed, even hardcore free traders are starting to realise its all bunk anyway.

 

[konfab]

inflation is just theft by the bank, sort of like controlling the temperature the frog is boiled at

its exactly the reason markets are not free, since banks control prices through inflation as well

Inflation is the market reaction to the banks printing money. That is neither theft nor charity. The bits they skim off the top in forms of extra interest and fees is the price the economy pays for having the money lubricate the moving of its capital assets.

 

[saturnz]

Inflation is the market reaction to the banks printing money. That is neither theft nor charity. The bits they skim off the top in forms of extra interest and fees is the price the economy pays for having the money lubricate the moving of its capital assets.

raaaait

 

[konfab]

What you forgot to add was these tariffs will be a further step away from the free trade.

As they stand, I agree with you because they apply to everyone, even the countries which are not damaging the US steel industry.

Not that im overly fazed, even hardcore free traders are starting to realise its all bunk anyway.

Yes, the bunk that has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system of economics. But no, lets embrace the state and its wise masters.

 

[rietrot]

A group of workers in the US is competing against the group of workers in China.

The workers in the China are allowed to be exploited by their employers. The workers in the US are not.

No their not. Not directly, only in as far as being citizens of a certain country. Otherwise wages would balance out and everything would be perfect if they actually competed against each other.

The only support the government needs to provide is to create a pro-business environment for companies to grow. Things like property rights and low taxation are things that foster economic competition.

The only thing government should really be doing is making sure that when there is international competition, it that it is fair competition.

yes ideally, but they have to take the interest of their citizens into account and what other countries are doing. In this case they need to decide do they want cheap Chinese steel or do they want their own manufacturing industry. They need to find the right balance.

So if South Africa has a minimum wage and labour laws, it should only allow free trade between countries that have some sort of similar policies. That is actual free trade. Countries that don't follow these basic guidelines can trade, but they have a tariff to compensate for their exploitative practices. Elsewise, South Africa should ditch the labour laws for that sector of the economy.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't help anyone.

Freedom meams people are free to do what they want. You can't say freetrade can only happen under your ideal conditions. That isn't freetrade anymore as you just imposed universal restrictions on that freedom.
Freetrade is ultimately allowing people a choice were the buy the stuff they consume and allowing competition. Ideally American manufacturers should stick a flag on their product and the buyer should decide if they want the patriotic steel that give his neighbour a job or does he want the cheap Chinese stuff made with child labour.

 

[konfab]

It was a textbook case of whataboutism.

Actually it was not

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

This is an example.

In response to criticism of China's human right record at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, Chinese diplomat Fu Cong told the Council, “The US is notorious for prison abuse at Guantánamo prison, its gun violence is rampant, racism is its deep-rooted malaise. The United States conducts large-scale extra-territorial eavesdropping, uses drones to attack other countries’ innocent civilians, its troops on foreign soil commit rape and murder of local people. It conducts kidnapping overseas and uses black prisons.

What I said:

TIL that putting protectionist tariffs on imported goods is considered healthy competition....

You think that $15 minimum wage idea that Comrade Sanders wants isn't just as protectionist? Or protecting striking workers isn't exactly the same type of protectionism?

If you look at what I said, it is not whataboutism as both issues relate to protectionism and protecting US workers. The only difference is what level of society they are applied at.