Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
There are plenty of white papers if you’re truly interested in independent, objective analysis by economists. I remember reading the CRS report a couple of years ago and one chart stood out to me: all 12 countries entering the agreement would have higher GDP by 2030(?) as a result of the deal, in addition to all of the geo-political advantages.
I think the "fair trade" and "level playing field" stuff is euphemistic hogwash -- an excuse for protectionism by another name.
Sadly, the Sanders wing of liberals aren’t in favor of free trade either, which is just especially frustrating because at the present time, Republicans have ceded the high ground on this sound economic policy, and I have a sinking feeling my side is going to blow it and not take advantage.
Biden’s a free trader. He will take advantage if he’s the nominee.
I did. It's right there in the quote attributed to me.
When there is real free trade then we can talk. There isn't. In fact what so infuriating is the US is so open while others aren't. We are the 2 bit whore in a western saloon and everybody else is the church lady.
The reason free trade doesn't exist is because of tariffs and other barriers. Erecting more barriers doesn't make trade more free. It does exactly the opposite.
Of course I am...it's all I've ever asked for. Any "analysis" I read at the time had a ton of assumptions baked into them and I find it incredibly difficult that isn't the case here, especially when framing things in terms of GDP. First question was "higher" than when? All the discussions I read at the time were based on guesses of what was in the deal. If you have papers based on actual terms of the deal I'm up for reading them even if it is a moot point now. I can't imagine this is the case given the hundreds of factors that go into GDP....predicting it's future is virtually impossible even if you know all the legislation at hand, which we didn't at the time.
And they buy American debt basically to loan us the money to buy from them while they artificially keep their own currency undervalued to maintain that trade deficit. Now the benefit to us, at least in the foreseeable future, is we export our inflation and they can't really afford to dump our dollars or debt as it would seriously affect their economy.
Come on NC. We've subsidized and protected certain of our industries for decades. This pretense that we're these wide open people while everyone else doesn't play fair is sheer fantasy.
We are far more open than any of our trading partners. Oh and by the way thanks for affirming there is no such thing as free trade and even we dont really practice it. Nice to have you onboard.
Nobody's saying that trade barriers don't exist. We're saying that they're bad and we should try to reduce them rather than add to them.
As with self-driving trucks, it won't help all workers. It will help some and hurt others while helping the economy overall. International trade generally hurts American upholsterers and generally helps Hollywood actors. I agree that we should be doing more to use the winners' gains to help soften the blow to the losers. Adding more barriers to the overall benefits is not the right way to do that, IMO.
Somehow I'm suddenly tariff guy. I've said tariffs if used should be extremely targeted and much thought should be given to the unintentional consequences they can cause. What I'm talking about is trade agreements that actually result in fairer trade. One way that could happen is for their to be a mechanism that provides for worker retraining and maybe even relocation. That has a mechanism that makes sure the gains are more widespread so that we mitigate the continued growth of the wealth divide in this country. But we aren't doing that. Instead for example Boeing is building a factory in China where they are required to transfer technology to Chinese supply chain entities that will eventually replace good paying high tech jobs here. Because if they dont they will lose out to Airbus who gave in years ago. Some folks will win and we'll do nothing to mitigate the losses of many others. Generational losses in some cases. That doesn't seem like trade that is good for this country to me.
Can you explain to me how they work? Your comment makes me think you understand them. I have not looked at them but below is what I've heard was done. Explain why it is good or bad.
American car makers with the exception of Tesla are terrible at maki g cars that appeal outside of the US
Really? The number one seller in the UK for example is the Ford Fiesta. Has been for a while IIRC. And Ford occupies several of the top ten slots there.
My point was if they can be successful in Europe building and selling cars then it seems odd that American car makers can't make a dent in Japan unless there's more to it than the cars themselves.
Wouldn’t Japan importing cars be like the U.S. importing wheat? That doesn’t seem like comparative advantage.
GM sold Opel/Vauxhall. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. So it seems only Ford has any presence in Europe of the big American companies. South American markets are largely dominated by European, Korean and Japanese cars (some Chinese West of the Andes). Africa is filled with Japanese, Chinese and European cars. Asia with Asian brands. American car manufacturers ate withdrawing from the world - perhaps because of their love for gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks.
Some dems have been on TV saying it is about time someone stood up to China..hope this does not help Trump in long run.
Actually a friend of mine said "Neither, he believes the uneducated will believe China pays the tariffs, well, because they are uneducated"
