Like the simple fact I just brought up, and which you tap danced around with a lot of irrelevant smoke and mirrors.

To repeat, Bush instituted a tariff on steel in 2002 and 200,000 American jobs were lost. Trump's steel tariff is as harsh or harsher. So how is Trump's tariff good while Bush's was a disaster?

Free Trade Doesn't Mean What it Usedta Was
 

Excellent article.

https://mises.org/library/clarificat...ase-free-trade

From the article:


Since the time of Ricardo, the key assumption of trade theory remains, in the recent words of trade theorist Roy J. Ruffin, "the inability of factors to move from a country where productivity is low to another where productivity is higher." In a recent article in History of Political Economy (34:4, 2002, pp. 727-748), Ruffin shows that Ricardo’s claim over Robert Torrens as the discoverer of the principle of comparative advantage lies in Ricardo’s realization that comparative advantage, the basis of the case for free trade, lies in "factor immobility between countries." Ruffin notes that "of the 973 words Ricardo devoted to explaining the law of comparative advantage, 485 emphasized the importance of factor immobility."
If factors of production are as mobile as traded goods, the case for free trade--that it benefits all countries--collapses. There is no known case for free trade if factors of production are as mobile as traded goods.

G.W. Bush and his pappy, Bush I, were unmitigated economic failures so anyone hitching their wagon to these stalwart, 'free' trade Republicans, simply needs their head examined.

The Bushies, true Republican and staunch 'free' traders by the way, both destroyed the US economy during their tenure and as a result, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were eventually elected as a result.

You keep mentioning this silly example of W. imposing steel tariffs ... yet he recinded them and the trade deficit still grew larger, and more blue collar union guys still lost their jobs .... how come? The tariff couldn't have done all that since Bush rescinded them as you tell us.

In a Pic

Irrelevant smoke and mirrors ... 55,000 factories and manufacturing plants closed, millions upon millions of blue collar jobs lost ... 43 straight years of trade deficits ... and you say I tap dance around irrelevant smoke and mirrors.

Well, there you go...market looks like it has a chance to finish up for the day...so much for Gary Cohn...

First, you couldn't get a new or refurbished steel mill permitted in this country in less than five years, if at all.

Second, if you're talking about fully integrated mills (meaning they make their own sinter and coke) you're talking about a lot of money to build or refurbish one. A lot of the old integrated plants became what they call "mini mills." or mills that melt down scrap metal to make secondary products.

As for aluminum, there is only one sensible option. Drink a lot more beer and recycle the cans.

What?! :rant::rant::rant:

Oh, well, I guess someone has to do it.
Send me some......:p

Smoke and mirrors like this:

It is of little relevance to one consumer if that's all there is, but it affects a lot more consumer purchases. And it is a big deal to Ford Motors. Perhaps enough to build more cars in Mexico.

And like this:

Around 85% of manufacturing jobs lost in the last couple of decades were lost to automation, not to trade. What has that got to do with the issue?

Or this:

Number one, you, like The Donald, automatically assume that a trade deficit is a bad thing. It isn't. Number two, you assume that all of that comes from free trade. It doesn't.

Bush's tariffs caused the economic problems that killed 200K jobs. The tariffs and the job loss set other economic forces in motion that remained when the tariffs were gone. Like manufacturing jobs moved overseas. You don't get those jobs back by rescinding the tariffs, they are gone and the consequences remain. If you light a candle and it burns down, you don't get the candle back by blowing out the flame.

Flip
 

Except now countries with specific trade arrangements and similar national security concerns may be exempt...

FLOP

But can the factors of production ever become that mobile?

Certainly natural resources are factors of production. We buy coffee from Central America because it grows better there than in Idaho or Vermont.

Another aspect of that is when trade is differentiated into goods and services. While the US is running a YUGE trade deficit in goods, it is running a trade surplus in services. Are the factors of production of US services mobile, or could they ever be in the near future?

So much resentment by people who have moneys tucked away that no one can see, unlike the common man who can be dissected in minutes as to what he owns and has with a few keystrokes online. If the Builderburg Group is staunchly opposed to tariffs and fair trade it has to be good.

From what I gather, the reason for the steel tariffs is that China has been dumping steel into Canada and using NAFTA to get it into the US and bypass regulations that prevented them from dumping it straight into the US to begin with.

That is an example of why Trump is correct that all these deals have to be renegotiated. Everyone is cheating and we are the sucker at the table.

Economic theory is just bullshit.

I have all kinds of logical theories on horses, but if I'm losing my shirt on one of them I stop making the same kind of bets.

We are getting killed on free trade. That's a 100% certainty. We've been running massive trade deficits for decades.

Threatening or imposing tariffs could be a bad idea, but not if the end result is a better deal instead of a trade war. Let's see how it plays out first.

You don't understand national security. It's not a flip-flop, it's a "carve-out". :D

Our armed forces consume over 3% of the steel used in this country Since only 72.5% of that steel comes from domestic sources, we have to insure that the military will always have the hardware they need. So we desperately need the 25% of our imports that come from Canada and Mexico.

And to get the "carve-out", they have to "cave-in" to The Donald's version of NAFTA.