Truth About Trade

From the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc5a3610-9e3c-11de-b0...

Obama can help free trade with tariffs


The conventional view is based on the notion that free trade is always a win-win proposition and that our trade with China fits the conditions of the traditional free-trade model.
...

But this is not even close to the reality of our trade with China, which far from embracing orthodox free trade has openly adopted a neo-mercantilist, export-led economic growth strategy
...

Nor is the detriment only to the US industry. Orthodox unilateral free-traders argue that, even if the US tyre workers lose their jobs, the US economy will enjoy a net benefit from lower consumer prices. But this is true only if the shuttered US factories and laid-off workers quickly shift to some other equally productive and well-paid activity. If, as we know, they cannot, the entire economy will suffer a loss of productivity and wages.

This kind of trade is not win-win. Rather it is a classic zero-sum game. It is well-known to game theorists that in such situations a tit-for-tat response is the optimal strategy. Unilateral acquiescence to the aggressive initiatives of another player (the orthodox unilateral free-trade response) is a sure way to lose.


ME

A good president realizes the things he is not expert in and listens to the advice of experts. Fortunately, this Presidents economic experts and the the independent, bipartisan US International Trade Commission are more nuanced on the complexity if REAL WORLD trade issues.

When businesses sell stuff, they should separate the tax from the rest of the price. This would educate their customer. I feel the same way about other hidden taxes, like the employer's portion of payroll tax. It should say in your pay statement what your gross pay would have been if the employer didn't have to pay that tax. We need tax visibility. People are less likely to fight taxes they can't see.

V V,

The preamble to the constitution is just typical glossy political rhetoric and has no authority as it is not part of the constitution itself. Those guys had to try and justify to the people what they did in shoving the constitution through.

Aside from that, I am curious where you see in the preamble a pledge, or implied pledge, to other nations that the new United States of America wouldn't invade them and subjugate them, or just plain economically stomp them into the ground. The preamble says nothing about any future attitude towards other lands and other peoples. As for the people here in America, the preamble expresses hopes and dreams but nothing concrete.

Art 1. Sec 8, para 1. of the corporate charter says, "to provide for the common defense and the general Welfare of the United States;", now that is binding on the corporation, but says nothing about any attitude towards other lands or other peoples.

But, I do agree with the end of your closing sentence.

"where you see in the preamble a pledge, or implied pledge, to other nations that the new United States of America wouldn't invade them"

I was only referring to "no moral right to actively hurt some citizens to benefit others".

But, it can be justified from the preamble. For the state to exert its force in the world so that you can play Prince Charming to some foreign Damsel in Distress that YOU value, is NOT acting in the general welfare, and could thusly be construed as contrary to the purpose of the Union (as stated in the Preamble).

If the state's existence is justified, so must be some measure of self-defense. That's not what I was referring to by "leave them to their own devices".

OK ... that does it. I'm starting my own list... of Minarchipitidies.

#1
"The preamble to the constitution is just typical glossy political rhetoric and has no authority as it is not part of the constitution itself. Those guys had to try and justify to the people what they did in shoving the constitution through."



Now THERE IS a great campaign slogan! You should be Wayne Root's next campaign advisor.

Muirduck,

Thanks my little pet for muirpidity #39.

"OK ... that does it. I'm starting my own list... of Minarchipitidies.
#1
"The preamble to the constitution is just typical glossy political rhetoric and has no authority as it is not part of the constitution itself. Those guys had to try and justify to the people what they did in shoving the constitution through."
Now THERE IS a great campaign slogan! You should be Wayne Root's next campaign advisor.

You just have no clue as to how greatly your stupidity exceeds your ignorance....no wait, did I say that backwards? But, either way, like the average Village Idiot, you're a consistent source of entertainment.

Here's a surprise: My life IS more valuable to me than most other lives. So are the lives of my loved ones. Likewise, the state is not created to serve humanity, but its citizens.

The moral argument is not what the author states. Instead, it is nearly the same as the economic argument. A state whose existence is to serve its citizens has no moral right to actively hurt some citizens to benefit others. In the CotUS this intent is explicit in the preamble's general welfare clause. Its positive actions toward people of other nations is properly restricted to leave them to their own devices--just as our individual actions are toward our neighbors--but a state does not and should not value them equal to its own citizens.

Don,

Sometimes you present things that are just so obvious and unarguable that discussion is difficult.