100% of Economists Disagree with Trump

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole idea of raising tariffs is to make American products competitive.

It makes the economy less competitive, not more competitive.

It takes taxes away from more productive areas of the economy and gives taxes to less productive areas of the economy. Companies which cannot compete should be allowed to go bankrupt. Tariffs do not allow this to happen.

It staggers me that people who think they are "conservatives" support this. Tariffs are the government taking money from you and the government choosing winners and losers in the economy. This is a big reason why conservatives have always supported lowering tariffs - they don't believe that the government should be using tax money to support business.

Conservatives got all bent out of shape over bailing out the banks because the government used tax money to bail out a failing industry, but imposing tariffs is the exact same thing - it uses tax money to bail out failing industries.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

Or you could cut taxes and regulations and pay less for products.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The whole idea of raising tariffs is to make American products competitive.

It makes the economy less competitive, not more competitive.

It takes taxes away from more productive areas of the economy and gives taxes to less productive areas of the economy. Companies which cannot compete should be allowed to go bankrupt. Tariffs do not allow this to happen.

It staggers me that people who think they are "conservatives" support this. Tariffs are the government taking money from you and the government choosing winners and losers in the economy. This is a big reason why conservatives have always supported lowering tariffs - they don't believe that the government should be using tax money to support business.

Conservatives got all bent out of shape over bailing out the banks because the government used tax money to bail out a failing industry, but imposing tariffs is the exact same thing - it uses tax money to bail out failing industries.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

Or you could cut taxes and regulations and pay less for products.

I dont know if you could cut taxes enough to make a difference.

 

[percysunshine]

The whole idea of raising tariffs is to make American products competitive.

It makes the economy less competitive, not more competitive.

It takes taxes away from more productive areas of the economy and gives taxes to less productive areas of the economy. Companies which cannot compete should be allowed to go bankrupt. Tariffs do not allow this to happen.

It staggers me that people who think they are "conservatives" support this. Tariffs are the government taking money from you and the government choosing winners and losers in the economy. This is a big reason why conservatives have always supported lowering tariffs - they don't believe that the government should be using tax money to support business.

Conservatives got all bent out of shape over bailing out the banks because the government used tax money to bail out a failing industry, but imposing tariffs is the exact same thing - it uses tax money to bail out failing industries.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

Or you could cut taxes and regulations and pay less for products.

I dont know if you could cut taxes enough to make a difference.

.
At the limits, taxes are either 100%, or 0%.

 

[jillian]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

his "solution" is simplistic. the concept of protecting our salary rates is a good one. that should start with forcing companies who sell goods here to pay all their workers, even those out of the country, a living wage.

 

[Correll]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

The guy is like the Tazmanian Devil of contemporary political discourse.

He appears to think that the Chinese would just sit there and not react to huge tariffs. Yeah, they'll just sit there and take it.

Uh, that's the country that owns $1.2 TRILLION of our debt, sir, and could dump a shitload of it tomorrow, causing MAJOR economic havoc.

Gawd.

We have an annual Trade Deficit with China running at over 300 billion and climbing.

There are two possibilities.

1. That this reflects Unfair Trade and needs to be stopped to protect American interests and jobs from unfair competition.

2. That this is actually Free Trade and represents the fact that America and American are lazy ass dumb bitches that can't compete. If that is true, then we need to avoid battles we can't win and stop trade with China to protect American Interests and jobs.

Also, their ownership of so much of our debt is as much of a problem for them, as it is for US. If we go down in flames they eat that.


I believe in scenario 1. They have been fucking US for years, and it is time to end it.

They have little leverage because the Trade is so lopsided. What are they going to do? Stop fucking US? That's sort of the point.

This is an extremely complicated issue. Between them, China & Russia hold +/- $3 trillion in our bonds, and they are going to protect themselves. Always.

Here's my point regarding this thread: Either Trump knows better and he's grandstanding at a level I've never seen, or he DOESN'T know better and that's even worse.
.

It is a very complicated issue.

The OP makes a number of simple assumptions that ignore that.

1. That the Trade between China and the US is "Free". I do not believe that. I would bet that Trump does not believe that.

2. That the US is a single player. This is not true. Even if "Free Trade" generates more profit for American Corporations, it does so at the expense of the US working and middle class.


And the bonds are another issue. China has a vested interest in US continuing our stupid levels of consumption vs savings because their economy is export based and we are their biggest victim.

 

[Kosh]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

his "solution" is simplistic. the concept of protecting our salary rates is a good one. that should start with forcing companies who sell goods here to pay all their workers, even those out of the country, a living wage.

See the key word "living wage" being used by the far left drones?

What is a "living wage"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole idea of raising tariffs is to make American products competitive.

It makes the economy less competitive, not more competitive.

It takes taxes away from more productive areas of the economy and gives taxes to less productive areas of the economy. Companies which cannot compete should be allowed to go bankrupt. Tariffs do not allow this to happen.

It staggers me that people who think they are "conservatives" support this. Tariffs are the government taking money from you and the government choosing winners and losers in the economy. This is a big reason why conservatives have always supported lowering tariffs - they don't believe that the government should be using tax money to support business.

Conservatives got all bent out of shape over bailing out the banks because the government used tax money to bail out a failing industry, but imposing tariffs is the exact same thing - it uses tax money to bail out failing industries.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

If you want to bring jobs back to America you're going to have to pay more for products.

Or you could cut taxes and regulations and pay less for products.

I dont know if you could cut taxes enough to make a difference.

I dont know if you could cut taxes enough to make a difference.


Our 35% corporate tax rate, highest in the world, doesn't make our goods cheaper.

 

[Mad Scientist]

America did just fine with Tariffs and no Income Tax until the Federal Reserve and "Free Trade" came along.

Tariff: Fee charged to allow foreign manufacturers to access American Markets.

 

[Correll]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

Let us not overlook that China would then raise tariffs on many US products. This is called a trade war. trump operates in this weird bubble where we are the Galactic Empire telling Lando Calrissian, "prey I don't alter it further".

Sorry stumpf, the real world doesn't work like that.

As China buys a forth of what they sell to US, this would be of little concern to US.

While any reduction in their exports to US could destroy them.

 

[Correll]

We have an annual Trade Deficit with China running at over 300 billion and climbing.

There are two possibilities.

There are more possibilities than that.

One of the biggest reasons why we have a trade deficit is because America is a great place to invest. People want to be here.

If foreigners invest more in America than Americans invest abroad, that by definition MUST create a trade deficit. It also creates a capital surplus. If a British person invests in the US, he uses pounds to invest in the United States. The American now has British pounds, which are worthless to him in the United States. The only thing pounds are good for to an American is to buy British stuff. The American then buys British stuff and we have a trade deficit with the UK. The US has a trade deficit and a capital surplus, and the British have a trade surplus and a capital deficit. Capital leaves the UK and comes to the US, and stuff from the UK comes back to the US as the pounds invested in the US go back to the UK in another manner. That's how international trade and capital flows work.

People talk about a trade deficit like it is isolation, but that is false. Because we have a trade deficit, we also have a capital surplus. America runs a capital surplus.

Trump may have had a point about China keeping its currency too low several years ago, but not today. China's currency should be weaker, not stronger. China is in trouble, and it is a big reason why our stock markets have been selling off lately.

We are not buying so much Chinese crap because they are investing so much over here.

We are doing it, because of Cheap Labor and Currency Manipulation.

Question: Do we want our Middle Class and Working class to have their wages be "competitive" to the Third World Poor?


Another Question: HOw much money is lost in that Trade Balance due to Software and Video Piracy?

 

[Correll]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

his "solution" is simplistic. the concept of protecting our salary rates is a good one. that should start with forcing companies who sell goods here to pay all their workers, even those out of the country, a living wage.

I would be happy to support that, in the interests of strangling Third World Manufacturing and bring those jobs home.

 

[Toro]

$3 trillion? Hardly. Russia holds about $82 billion. China, less than $1.5 trillion.

http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

China is down to about $1.2 trillion, and selling about $100 billion a month.

We could be facing the mother of all balance of payment crises.

 

[Toro]

We are not buying so much Chinese crap because they are investing so much over here.

We are doing it, because of Cheap Labor and Currency Manipulation.

Question: Do we want our Middle Class and Working class to have their wages be "competitive" to the Third World Poor?

The Chinese currency is over-valued, not under-valued. It's going to fall a lot further.

We will have less jobs in total and a lower GDP by protecting jobs that we shouldn't be doing any more.

 

[Toro]

America did just fine with Tariffs and no Income Tax until the Federal Reserve and "Free Trade" came along.

Tariff: Fee charged to allow foreign manufacturers to access American Markets.

The Fed started in 1913, around a time when the world was becoming less global and trade restrictions were going up. We suffered two devastating world wars during this time.

Less globalization has correlated to more war over the 200 years. The more integrated the world becomes, the less likely we are to blow things up.

 

[Correll]

We are not buying so much Chinese crap because they are investing so much over here.

We are doing it, because of Cheap Labor and Currency Manipulation.

Question: Do we want our Middle Class and Working class to have their wages be "competitive" to the Third World Poor?

The Chinese currency is over-valued, not under-valued. It's going to fall a lot further.

We will have less jobs in total and a lower GDP by protecting jobs that we shouldn't be doing any more.

Who says we shouldn't be doing them anymore?

We have plenty of unskilled, or semiskilled workers who would love to have those jobs.

Should not a President consider their interests and not just the interests of the Consumers and the Corporations?

 

[Freewill]

100 percent of the economists are not as rich as Trump, I go with the rich guy.

 

[Toro]

We are not buying so much Chinese crap because they are investing so much over here.

We are doing it, because of Cheap Labor and Currency Manipulation.

Question: Do we want our Middle Class and Working class to have their wages be "competitive" to the Third World Poor?

The Chinese currency is over-valued, not under-valued. It's going to fall a lot further.

We will have less jobs in total and a lower GDP by protecting jobs that we shouldn't be doing any more.

Who says we shouldn't be doing them anymore?

We have plenty of unskilled, or semiskilled workers who would love to have those jobs.

Should not a President consider their interests and not just the interests of the Consumers and the Corporations?

The answer is "Yes" if you want the economy to be poorer in aggregate.

Conservatives support free trade. Free trade is evidence of a strong, confident country. Protectionism is the province of those who believe we are not strong enough or good enough to compete. That's why great leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher supported free trade and not tariffs and protectionism.

Ronald Reagan on free trade.

One of the greatest contributions the US can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember: Protectionism is destructionism. America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade--trade that is free, open, and fair.​

Ronald Reagan on Free Trade

Ronald Reagan supported free trade long before he became President of the United States and as president said “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.” Milton Freidman, the great free market advocate said, “Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade.” And many credit Frederic Bastiat, the French economist adored by Margaret Thatcher, for advocating trade by noting, “When goods don’t cross borders, Soldiers will.” There is little debate that free trade is beneficial for workers and nations alike.​

Free Trade is a Core Conservative Principle | RedState

 

[Toro]

100 percent of the economists are not as rich as Trump, I go with the rich guy.

Warren Buffett is the richest man in America, much richer than Trump, and he supports free trade.

So by your yardstick, you should support free trade because the guy with the most money supports it.

 

[the_human_being]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

How many of them are worth billions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not surprising, given that economists - regardless of political stripe - agree that free trade is good for Americans.

Donald Trump’s solution is to ... levy a 45% tax on Chinese imports. The idea is to make Chinese goods more expensive so that American producers who pay their workers more can gain a competitive edge.

There’s a painful side effect to this plan, however: It would, well, make a lot of products more expensive, and most of the price hikes would come straight out of consumer wallets. ... A 45% tariff on Chinese imports would encourage other low-cost exporters, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Mexico, to ship more goods to America. Whether U.S. producers would gain an edge is debatable. ...

Trump’s tariff plan would likely meet firm public resistance. Economists would also protest. “Economists disagree about a lot,” says Ozimek, “but there’s very strong agreement that free trade benefits Americans, on average.” A poll of economists by the University of Chicago, for instance, found that 100% of them believe U.S. trade with China makes most Americans better off.

Most economists also agree that free trade—like anything that improves efficiency and market performance—produces winners and losers. And the losers usually include people who get the job done slower, at a higher cost than competitors. Protecting underperformers isn’t likely to help the U.S. economy. Helping them perform better would.​

Donald Trump wants you to pay more for smartphones, TVs and a lot else

And...with respect to your title:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).