Support NeoGAF

[KonradLaw]

If you keep subsidies, non-tariff barriers and tariffs around then trade is not really free. How do you square that circle even if your goal is to protect people from bankruptcy? It's a rigged game with winners and losers determined by the gov't if no one is willing to strip out all the preferential treatment. Trump wants to MAGA.

I guess when faced with the prospect of markets putting certain people out of business, then folks who shout free trade this and free market that...want a handout just like everyone else. They want big gov't to step in to prop them up, but don't want the gov't to prop you up because they're not the ones getting hurt.

Well, essentially subsidies are necessary in any developed country. Otherwise poorer countries with cheaper labor would eat you alive. The trick is to eat a cake and have it too. Which is what EU is. It provides free trade inside the block, while protecting it's members from outside competition. USA would get completely annihilated with fully free trade. It should protect it's citizens and businesses. Of course, it's not big enough to do it on their own, which is why NAFTA and deals with EU are necessary.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Well, essentially subsidies are necessary in any developed country. Otherwise poorer countries with cheaper labor would eat you alive. The trick is to eat a cake and have it too. Which is what EU is. It provides free trade inside the block, while protecting it's members from outside competition. USA would get completely annihilated with fully free trade. It should protect it's citizens and businesses. Of course, it's not big enough to do it on their own, which is why NAFTA and deals with EU are necessary.

So do tariffs achieve the same thing for the US -- free trade between states and protection from outside? And can tariffs be placed on a "tap" that can be loosened or tightened depending on which direction the economy is leaning?

 

[Bolivar687]

I find mercantilism quite refreshing, honestly.

 

[Super Mario]

Is this finally concrete proof the tariffs were a terrible idea? And more importantly isn't government bailouts exactly what conservatives in general hate?

You do not get "concrete proof" from a market correction immediately. Not even close.

The moves are bold, that is for sure. Many have acknowledged the problem. Few have come up with a solution. Do we sit and let China become more powerful, or try something else? The bigger we let China get, while ripping us off, is one of the worst positions we could be in.

 

[Vicetrailia]

You do not get "concrete proof" from a market correction immediately. Not even close.

The moves are bold, that is for sure. Many have acknowledged the problem. Few have come up with a solution. Do we sit and let China become more powerful, or try something else? The bigger we let China get, while ripping us off, is one of the worst positions we could be in.

TPP for starters, plus establishing more trade with other partners so they buy less fron China (who wants to move to being an IMPORT country like the U.S. is now).

So in other words, do what Obama did. But remember, you can't stop China from doing what they do, but we as the major superpower can have more influence.

 

[NickFire]

Is this finally concrete proof the tariffs were a terrible idea? And more importantly isn't government bailouts exactly what conservatives in general hate?

Nope. As of now it seems they are working enough to get serious dialogue going. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/politics/trump-juncker-tariffs-trade/index.html

Might still fizzle out and who knows what happens then. Too soon to tell.

With respect to bailouts, I can only speak for myself. I am not a fan of bailing out bad behavior like banks making piss poor loans knowing they were doing that. But if the US government takes action, which Trump leads, and that action harms a vital component for us to survive, like farmers, I believe we should be helping them cope with the repercussions of a trade war.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

So why is one form of protectionism better than the other? The distortion effect can be very similar. A tariff, a subsidy, a quota, an intellectual property law. They all fall under the protectionist umbrella and are the antithesis of free markets and free trade. Prices are distorted by the actions of govt rather than the actions of the market. If someone believes in free this and free that, then drop the trade barriers and let the market decide. No exceptions.

Don't you think supporting a minority group (farmers) at the expense of everyone else is morally wrong? Economically wrong? Or at least, is it wrong to support farmers but not the folks doing manufacturing?

How do you decide?

This is why Trump was elected and has to shake things up via his MAGA campaign. You can't preach free market propoganda to one side and slide govt assistance under the table to the other. People aren't gullible enough to just accept it. They strike back politically. Govt ought to try to protect everyone or protect no one.

 

[Unknown Quantity]

Soy farmers should focus on Soylent green, it has all necessary nutrients and means less hungry people.

 

[Super Mario]

TPP for starters, plus establishing more trade with other partners so they buy less fron China (who wants to move to being an IMPORT country like the U.S. is now).

So in other words, do what Obama did. But remember, you can't stop China from doing what they do, but we as the major superpower can have more influence.

Nothing Obama did fixed this issue. At best it's a "hey look, I'm doing something".

 

[BANGS]

Trump fucked up. REDUCE spending, don't increase it...

 

[mckmas8808]

Nothing Obama did fixed this issue. At best it's a "hey look, I'm doing something".

It was better than what's in place now.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

This is the stupidest form of stimulus.

Like wow.

But industry groups that represent agriculture, as well as politicians from agricultural states, criticised the relief as a short-term solution to a self-inflicted problem.

"Time and time again I've heard from farmers that they want trade, not aid," said Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin.

"Instead of throwing money at a problem we've helped create, the better option is to take action to make it easier for our farmers - and manufacturers - to sell their goods at fair prices to consumers around the world."

Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted on Tuesday: "If tariffs punish farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers. The answer is remove the tariffs."

Senator Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican, said in a statement: "This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers and White House's 'plan' is to spend $12 billion on gold crutches.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Nothing Obama did fixed this issue. At best it's a "hey look, I'm doing something".

All of that went over your head.