Protectionism or Free Trade?

[vcczar 1,224]

New poll

[Guest]

i'm a free trade guy but was in favor of trump since i worried about her foreign policy

[pilight 237]

5 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

i'm a free trade guy but was in favor of trump since i worried about her foreign policy

Yeah, thank goodness we didn't get that warmonger in the White House...

[Guest]

Though most anti-free trade measures by trump will probably be blocked by the courts

[jvikings1 40]

I really didn't have an option that fits my view of trade for #1.  I am for fair trade because the system right now is rigged against the US. Other countries take advantage with these free trade deals, but encouraging trade isn't bad.

[Patine 469]

10 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I really didn't have an option that fits my view of trade for #1.  I am for fair trade because the system right now is rigged against the US. Other countries take advantage with these free trade deals, but encouraging trade isn't bad.

My view is even more complicated. I believe that this is an important and long-standing issue in world that, like a number of others, despite being complicated, multifaceted, convoluted, and with no easy or simple answers that have ever proven to sustainably work in the long-term, most people in the issue (and a number of other notable, long-standing issues in the world today) or pressured to take a binary stance, pure-and-white, often an unrealistic and unworkable one, and throw their whole weight behind it, and those who don't are often artificial derided and stripped of respect on the issue for being indecisive, or a fence-sitter, etc. I don't believe, in the modern day, across the board policies of protectionism or free-trade are healthy for a nation's economy, and in fact are quite detrimental, and such broad, across-the-board and the bravado in proclaiming actually hurts that nation's posture when they wish, at a later point, to renegotiate their trade statuses.

[jvikings1 40]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

My view is even more complicated. I believe that this is an important and long-standing issue in world that, like a number of others, despite being complicated, multifaceted, convoluted, and with no easy or simple answers that have ever proven to sustainably work in the long-term, most people in the issue (and a number of other notable, long-standing issues in the world today) or pressured to take a binary stance, pure-and-white, often an unrealistic and unworkable one, and throw their whole weight behind it, and those who don't are often artificial derided and stripped of respect on the issue for being indecisive, or a fence-sitter, etc. I don't believe, in the modern day, across the board policies of protectionism or free-trade are healthy for a nation's economy, and in fact are quite detrimental, and such broad, across-the-board and the bravado in proclaiming actually hurts that nation's posture when they wish, at a later point, to renegotiate their trade statuses.

I agree.  One example is the lumber tariff that was raised on Canada because of their subsidies.

[Patine 469]

24 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I agree.  One example is the lumber tariff that was raised on Canada because of their subsidies.

Being from Canada, I understand the reasons behind those specific subsidies. But, a very good example is coffee. There is not even remotely enough land with the climate and soil needed to grow coffee in the US (mostly parts of Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, really) to even fill a drop in the bucket to the monumental coffee DEMAND of the US population. If coffee were added to an across-the-board protectionist policy (because it was across-the-board), there would probably be an armed uprising!

[jvikings1 40]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Being from Canada, I understand the reasons behind those specific subsidies. But, a very good example is coffee. There is not even remotely enough land with the climate and soil needed to grow coffee in the US (mostly parts of Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, really) to even fill a drop in the bucket to the monumental coffee DEMAND of the US population. If coffee were added to an across-the-board protectionist policy (because it was across-the-board), there would probably be an armed uprising!

People love their coffee here.

[vcczar 1,224]

9 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

People love their coffee here.

Yeah, I'm surprised how much people are willing to pay for it now. A regular large cup of coffee can go from $3 to $5, and often with no discounts for refills.. When I was in undergrad in 2001 I would get a large cup of coffee for $1,00 with 25 cent refills. Starting in 2004, coffee prices started going way up, mainly because the whole "gourmet" coffee culture thing that started. In 2001, I could also get $1.00 large ice tea with two free refills at the same coffee shop. My rent was $325 for a one bedroom, so basically everything was noticeably cheaper now that I think about it. 2001 feels like yesterday to me. Can't believe that was 16 years ago. 

[Bruce Fischer 1]

Well for #1 I'm a mix of both but lean towards free trade

#2 is easy, I wanted Clinton to win but I actually like TPP but none of the candidates (including third parties) shared my opinion on this

#3 I think the Reagan/Bush I/Clinton era was bad and that Trump moved the right direction but is going way too far in that direction (which may lead to trade wars with China, Mexico, and, I can't believe this is a thing, Canada of all nations)

[vcczar 1,224]

I would have been for protectionism prior to WWI, but against it after WWI. However, I like bilateral trade agreements and multilateral trade agreements because they allow you to raise and lower tariffs amicably in minute areas. For the most part, I'd want a tariff for revenue only, or on a % of our deficit or debt, so long as the rate doesn't undermine the revenue. But I wouldn't do this for any good that is high need or essential to daily life, since the price will likely skyrocket if the tariff increases. 

[pilight 237]

8 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

#3 I think the Reagan/Bush I/Clinton era was bad and that Trump moved the right direction but is going way too far in that direction (which may lead to trade wars with China, Mexico, and, I can't believe this is a thing, Canada of all nations)

I'm curious what you base this on.  By almost all measures, the US economy did very well in that era.

[wolves 29]

My problem is that I think the Reagan/Bush/Clinton era was good, but I can't say it was good and support Trump's protectionism for #3.

[TheFlame8 0]

Any economist will agree that free trade is one of the best things to happen to the world.  It brings wealth to many areas of the world that would not have opportunities otherwise.

[pilight 237]

I don't know why people are so excited about Trump reenacting the Hoover administration

[Patine 469]

22 minutes ago, pilight said:

I don't know why people are so excited about Trump reenacting the Hoover administration

Yes, we all know how that story went...

[Bruce Fischer 1]

1 hour ago, pilight said:

I don't know why people are so excited about Trump reenacting the Hoover administration

Because maybe if he's similar to Hoover, then he'll get voted out in a landslide to a much better President in 3.5 years