How does Holla Forums feel about this topic?
Besides that, anons, is there a leeway between having protectionism and having free trade? I think fair trade appeals to me because it comes off more as mutual. I also think protectionism and free trade can just be applied separately.
Other urls found in this thread:
mega.nz
endchan.xyz
twitter.com
Free trade is evil. Government used to make the lion's share of its revenue out of tariffs, until it switched that for income tax. It also ships jobs overseas to sweat shops. We could have tens of thousands of skilled and reasonably high paid automated textile factories stateside, but we'd rather have our companies pay pennies to nigh slave labor and then ship it back to us to pay for instead.
I don't know whether this is bait or not, but Trump definitely has policies related to the topic here. I did mention fair trade, and I was thinking of Donald Trump when I brought it up.
read Ian Fletcher's 'Free Trade Doesn't Work'
it's in the Holla Forums monthly book collection
mega.nz
Trade is the driving stimulus in all nations, so to abolish nations and unite all under trade would benefit the whole of mankind rather than the (baker's dozen) individuals that own trade and society itself.
The Ideal government would be a single room building, with one man inside making all the descisions. He's chosen/elected annually through olympic trial, mental aptitude, and natural endurence. Anyone from around the world can apply but only one can succeed each year. There would also be divine documentation to regulate the phenomenon.
Essentially written would tell the government to fuck off and do nothing.
The world would be beautiful.
Did you have a stroke or something?
...
Protectionism is based, "free" trade is globalist kikery.
Lolbergs can fuck off.
Leftypo/cuckchan fuck off
KIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE GET OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT
Free trade would be more palatable if countries like China didn't provide huge subsidies to some of their industries and weren't manipulating their currency.
If their government provides free power to their steel mills, it is almost impossible for a foreign private steel mill to compete.
If they are prepared to artificially weaken their currency to make their exports cheaper, they are also being unfair because they're just gaining trade advantages through other means.
They are basically making their products artificially cheap in order to capture markets, yes they are providing us with goods at a cheaper price than what they cost, but after many years of these activities I think the loss of jobs, opportunities and the hit to morale of western society must take precedence.
Ethno-states, progressive taxation, ensuring the country remains in national(ist) hands and then just trad as much as you want within the limits of common interest. It's not a mutually exclusive thing.
Free trade is globalism. You do the math.
SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.
FREE TRADE IS NOT AN IDEAL OF CONSERVATISM
Free trade is an ideal of cuckservatism.
There is no such thing as "free trade" it's a false jewish misnomer. Once you've allowed foreign governments (or foreign government backed corporations) to compete in your economy, you've already killed any concept of "free," as they play by no rules yet your citizenry is still forced to play by their rules to compete.
Even if every country in the world extended the same privileges to your company that your nation does to theirs, it's still not "free trade" as governments are not bound by rules of the market and can collectivize as many assets as they need to then pour into your market and run you out of business in your own hometown. As a non government entity, your nation's businesses don't have that luxury.
There's a time for free trade and there's a time for protectionism. The way to tell which is appropriate is to evaluate the living standards of the nations you are trading with. When you are trading freely with nations whose living standards are far below yours, your native workers will be competing with people who require a much lower wage because their garbage lifestyles cost next to nothing to maintain. When this occurs, market forces will naturally force the standards of living of your workers down to match those of Pajeet in the Designated Shitting Street.
So right now, protectionism is the way to move forward. If we contain our industry and trade to nations that have similar living standards to ours, we will do much better than if we outsource all our livelihood to China or India. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, the standard of living in the US was hardly better than anywhere else in the world. We were colonists, living hard, short lives. It made sense to trade with everyone we could then, because we only stood to gain. Right now we don't, and the globalists have demonstrated this quite effectively by selling our industry down the river.
Great topic OP. I was about to make one on the same subject myself. I really want to know the pros and cons so I can argue better.
I've always thought of it like this too…
It is global wealth redistribution.
You aren't helping another country come up to your level, you will instead go down and meet them in the middle.
Even if free trade does work, nobody ever wants to sign an actual free trade agreement – they always stuff protectionist measures in it that make the situation worst.
Lolbertarians argue that all's fair in love and trade war, and if we really wanted a better life we'd either play their games (and demolish the standard of living) or suck it up (and demolish our industry, which is what our govt has done). We need to start pulling jobs back from China and making them hurt for manipulating currency. It will make things more costly for us in the short term but it will also increase the standard of living.
In the short term, it'd DECREASE the standard of living. Joe 6-pack won't be able to buy cheap goods from China so what money he does have won't go nearly as far.
As markets adapt to this and Trump's other policies though, things get better. Wages rise and American industry starts using automation (in lieu of slave labor) to produce the things China once did.
The rising wages and the automation eventually bring the prices for goods like electronics and cheap plastic shit down to manageable levels and eventually passes the break-even point and keeps rising to the point where Joe 6-pack's purchasing power is better than it was before.
How long this takes is the key problem. How long this process takes will determine if Trump and his policies on trade will cast him in the light of the savior or the destroyer. We all know he's not a destroyer, but a lot of Americans would blame him for the temporary reduction in their purchasing power.
Fucking brave new world tier apathy and selfishness.
Free trade is pretty retarded
See "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism"
A Korean goes through the economic history of the West and modern Asia and rips aparts free trade
I think free trade is preferable as long as it's a level playing field. Right now "free trade" is a euphemism for things that benefit large corporations but reduce the leverage that workers have.
To give an example, think of the H1-B visa program. Companies can hire foreigners and pay them low wages, and the foreigners don't have much bargaining power because they can easily be fired and have to be sent home. This reduces wages across the board, and American workers now have to compete with people who will accept slave wages. They talk about extending the H1-B program as "free trade" when it is nothing of the sort. Real free trade would be to let talented foreigners compete with Americans on an even footing (I'm not advocating open borders here, just giving an example).
Another example is the evil shitbags at Monsanto who like the idea of selling their shit to the whole world, while lobbying to prevent farmer joe from using heirloom seeds.
this user gets it:
fundamentally, when politicians talk about free trade this is what they mean, big established companies can skirt the rules while the little guy has to obey.
Free trade benefits countries that have no liberties or even standards for the people.
These countries will always outcompete civilized countries in a free trade system.
Free trade is simply a method for redistributing wealth internationally.
By the way free internal market is fine, it's just free trade between nations that sucks.
Free trade would be great if it weren't for the fact working conditions vary greatly across the globe.
If regulations and taxes were equal between all nations that enacted free trade agreements then it wouldn't be unfair to any one party but that isn't the fucking case now is it?
Not every nation has the same living/working conditions.
Some nations routinely employ slavery, or slavelike conditions.
Would you say it is fair to have free peoples compete in a "Free Market" versus slave labor?
The question of whether america or europe is a free market or not, breaks down when you begin to factor in "Free Trade" with nations that might not be so Free.