Benefits of free trade vis-a-vis new vehicle costs.

[Mark S.]

As you may have surmised, I'm a big proponent of free trade. It's what has created the explosion of wealth over the past 150 years or so, wealth that's allowed the human race to reduce worldwide poverty and hunger rates to unheard of levels despite the population explosion.

For the vast majority of human history, the percent of the world population living in extreme poverty hovered around 90%. At the beginning of the 1800s, the rate was still above 80%, and then it began a steady decline to around 50% before WWII. After a small increase during the war, it has dropped precipitously to less than 10% today. It's not surprising the decrease in world poverty coincides with the increase in worldwide free trad. Free trade is the BEST way to increase wealth, which has the same effect as reducing costs for goods and services, such as the Bronco Sport we all enjoy. Below is my response to a comment @BourbonRunner made in another post.

my original point above was that in response to the tariff threat in his first admin, the Chinese imported rice from the US.

Reread the article you linked to: China imported SOME rice--a tiny fraction of what America produces and what China consumes. The overall result of the trade war is a net negative for both countries.

With regards to Wikipedia: is not allowed by many universities as a source. See below.

I don't believe I suggested anyone cite Wikipedia in an academic paper. What I said was statements claimed as fact in Wikipedia articles are backed with sources. If you don't want to read the article on Wikipedia then simple read the sources, all of which would be more than satisfactory for citation in an academic paper.

The major issue here is you're conflating the loss of jobs through the evolution of technology with the loss of jobs to offshoring because the cost of production is less expensive. These are not the same.

Different mechanism, same result.

You said "better jobs," and you also refer to it as "drudge work nobody wants to do, anyway." as a former blue collar worker who made the jump to the white collar, I found it highly offensive and frankly elitist.

Dude, I was an NCO in the US Air Force for 20 years. It doesn't get much more blue collar than that. I'm not trying to insult anyone. All I'm saying is jobs that don't require education or training are less valuable than jobs that do, and that's reflected in the pay. That's not an insult, it's reality.

That aside, what defines "better jobs" to you? Is it that the guy who flies a desk in a cube farm have a "better job" than the guy driving the honey pot truck pumping out portapots?

Just exactly what I said above. Jobs that require significant education and/or training pay better, therefore they ARE better. That's not true of all non-skilled jobs, of course. There are some that pay fairly well, often because they are dangerous or because people find them distasteful (your honey pot truck and/or garbage removal come to mind). People can certainly value aspects of a given job beyond pay, but pay is a direct measurement of a job's value.

Without a source of cheap labor via illegal immigration, those jobs would be available for Americans to take.

According to the BLS, only 54% of youth aged 16-24 were employed in July (the peak month for summer employment) of 2024. A survey conducted by Harris for Bloomberg found that 45% of youth live with their parents. How high do you think employers would have to increase wages to get these young people to do the jobs illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to do?

China is not an ally and its foolish to think otherwise. Chinese being lifted out of poverty is about as important to me as what my dog leaves in little piles on the grass.

I don't believe I claimed that China an ally, but there are nearly 1.5 billion people living there, and it sure would be nice if they were all on our side, you know? Increased trade is the most effective way to make that happen. Countries that engage in free trade with one another are far less likely to seek conflict. In fact, free trade is a better predictor of peace than democracy. We've been trying to export democracy to the Middle East for decades, with what most would consider to be disastrous results. We are in conflict with none of the countries we trade with in the Middle East--Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Israel. The more we engage in free trade with China the more wealthy its citizens become, and the less likely they will be willing to engage in conflict, no matter what their government tells them. Why would anyone want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs?

Sponsored

 

[BourbonRunner]

Since you want to call me out on a new thread, Mark, how come you selectively quoted me yet neglect to address, let alone include the following?

Your base your entire argument on the concept of free trade. But free trade only exists in text books and theoretical economics, especially when dealing with the CCP and even our allies. Free trade, as I wrote before, requires all parties to be honest brokers.

Certainly, trade to an extent has contributed to lifting millions out of poverty, but I'd argue that capitalism as a whole is the real reason behind that phenomenon and trade is just a component of it. China and Africa is a great example of what happens when "free trade" goes south.

Trade between the two operates in a deficit, albeit a slightly shrinking one currently but is expected to shift the other direction (2000-2024, BU GDPC). The majority of exports from Africa to China are minerals, raw materials, natural resources while the exports are (cheap) consumer goods. The net result is that domestic manufacturing will continue to suffer in Africa as it's available cheaper if it's imported. Africa then remains dependent on foreign sources for all goods with minimal domestic industry to sustain it if that relationship went south. Sound familiar?

Furthermore: We had minimal trade with the Soviet Union for decades. When it eventually it toppled under its own massive weight it wasn't because the US and West was trading with them. It was because they could not sustain the type of spending and production needed to keep their command economy afloat. By the time Perestroika initiated it was too late and the end was near.

We could have done that to the CCP. But instead Nixon opened them and gave them MFN Status and in 2000 they got it permanently. This approach to Sino-American diplomacy has screwed the US into a corner and the only way to slow it down is a different approach.

Free trade sounds great on paper but there is no reason why the US should have a trade deficit with ANY country. Our market can be open to them, but theirs had better be open to ours.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter#chapter-title-0-4

 

[Mark S.]

Mark, how come you selectively quoted me yet neglect to address, let alone include the following?

It appears you have chosen not to address many of my points as well. But since you asked, yes, free trade--not just with the U.S., but with nations around the world--has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens out of poverty. Because it applies its free trade policies around the world, China would have increased its wealth whether or not the U.S. traded with it.

Certainly, trade to an extent has contributed to lifting millions out of poverty, but I'd argue that capitalism as a whole is the real reason behind that phenomenon and trade is just a component of it.

Semantics. Capitalism cannot exist without free trade.

The majority of exports from Africa to China are minerals, raw materials, natural resources while the exports are (cheap) consumer goods.

Source please?

China and Africa is a great example of what happens when "free trade" goes south.

Neither China's nor Africa's leadership views trade between the two regions as anything other than beneficial for both. More to the point, the likelihood of armed conflict between the two is vanishingly small.

Free trade sounds great on paper but there is no reason why the US should have a trade deficit with ANY country. Our market can be open to them, but theirs had better be open to ours.

The trade deficit between the U.S. and China is troubling as regards the labor market, but it does not take into account the amount of money U.S. companies make from operations in China. That's money that U.S. companies may then invest in U.S. operations.

 

[Dude]

Those interested can invest some time reading about China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which in the long-run is unlikely to work out well for the countries that involve themselves with China. Already seeing evidence of that.

Here is a synopsis:

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive infrastructure project that aims to connect China with the rest of the world through new trade routes. The initiative is about more than just building infrastructure, however, as it also seeks to:

• Create an interdependent market for China

• Increase China's economic and political power
• Develop a high technology economy
• Improve regional integration
• Stimulate economic growth
• Enhance mutual understanding and trust among member nations

The BRI is made up of two parts:

1. Silk Road Economic Belt
A land route that connects China with Europe, Russia, Central Asia, south Asia, and Southeast Asia

2. 21st Century Maritime Silk Road
A sea route that connects China's coastal regions with the Middle East, Eastern Africa, Europe, the South Pacific, and southeast and south Asia

The BRI was launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping and has since expanded to include Africa, Oceania, and Latin America.

Some analysts view the BRI as an attempt by China to gain political leverage over its neighbors.

Others say that the BRI could have the potential to create a new era of trade and growth for economies in Asia and beyond.

 

[BourbonRunner]

It appears you have chosen not to address many of my points as well. .

Look, @Mark S. I said didn't want to get into a pissing match with you. Then you chose to start a thread to call me out.

At least have the decency to answer the questions I asked first.

 

[rootdoc]

Since you want to call me out on a new thread, Mark, how come you selectively quoted me yet neglect to address, let alone include the following?

Your base your entire argument on the concept of free trade. But free trade only exists in text books and theoretical economics, especially when dealing with the CCP and even our allies. Free trade, as I wrote before, requires all parties to be honest brokers.

Certainly, trade to an extent has contributed to lifting millions out of poverty, but I'd argue that capitalism as a whole is the real reason behind that phenomenon and trade is just a component of it. China and Africa is a great example of what happens when "free trade" goes south.

Trade between the two operates in a deficit, albeit a slightly shrinking one currently but is expected to shift the other direction (2000-2024, BU GDPC). The majority of exports from Africa to China are minerals, raw materials, natural resources while the exports are (cheap) consumer goods. The net result is that domestic manufacturing will continue to suffer in Africa as it's available cheaper if it's imported. Africa then remains dependent on foreign sources for all goods with minimal domestic industry to sustain it if that relationship went south. Sound familiar?

Furthermore: We had minimal trade with the Soviet Union for decades. When it eventually it toppled under its own massive weight it wasn't because the US and West was trading with them. It was because they could not sustain the type of spending and production needed to keep their command economy afloat. By the time Perestroika initiated it was too late and the end was near.

We could have done that to the CCP. But instead Nixon opened them and gave them MFN Status and in 2000 they got it permanently. This approach to Sino-American diplomacy has screwed the US into a corner and the only way to slow it down is a different approach.

Free trade sounds great on paper but there is no reason why the US should have a trade deficit with ANY country. Our market can be open to them, but theirs had better be open to ours.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter#chapter-title-0-4

Check your history...China's cultural revolution was what was causing poverty in the late 60's and early 70's. Nixon opened trade with China and China eventually thrived. The fact that the CCP then embraced "capitalism light" under the authoritarian control of the communist CCP is also why they have thrived. Nixon was 40 yrs ahead of the rise of the China economic powerhouse based on "slave labor" practices, so the USA could not have stifled the CCP at that time.

For both of you, where do you wqnt to draw the line. Trade with realistic limitations is the best policy, in my humble opinion.

 

[Mark S.]

Look, @Mark S. I said didn't want to get into a pissing match with you. Then you chose to start a thread to call me out.

I don't know what you mean by "pissing match." Discussion and debate is how people solve problems, learn new things, develop relationships, etc., etc., etc. I didn't start this post to "call you out," I started it because the discussion was veering off the topic of the post where it began.

BTW, disagreement is not "calling you out," it's simply me stating my opinion. You are free to engage in discussion or ignore me. I have no ill will toward you whatsoever, I just disagree with your opinion on this issue.

At least have the decency to answer the questions I asked first.

I did. I decently stated:

Reread the article you linked to: China imported SOME rice--a tiny fraction of what America produces and what China consumes. The overall result of the trade war is a net negative for both countries.

In other words, I don't view the importation of an insignificant amount of rice to be germane to this discussion.

 

[Mark S.]

Trade with realistic limitations is the best policy, in my humble opinion.

Yup. Trust, but verify. The biggest obstacle to free trade with China at the moment (IMHO) it the lack of transparency. Its government exercises draconian control of all information in the country.

 

[BourbonRunner]

In other words, I don't view the importation of an insignificant amount of rice to be germane to this discussion.

You missed my point entirely.

I said that with the threat of tariffs looming the Chinese imported rice from the US to attempt to win favor and stave off the tariffs.

The amount was not important, it was the fact that they did it in the first place. That was what I pointed out.

Then you dropped a Wikipedia excerpt that had zero to do with the statement above and we went down the rabbit hole.

 

[Mark S.]

You missed my point entirely.

I said that with the threat of tariffs looming the Chinese imported rice from the US to attempt to win favor and stave off the tariffs.

The amount was not important, it was the fact that they did it in the first place. That was what I pointed out.

Then you dropped a Wikipedia excerpt that had zero to do with the statement above and we went down the rabbit hole.

The Wikipedia article was to show that when compared to the amount of trade between China and the U.S., the amount of rice China purchased was not significant, even if it was meant only as eyewash.

That aside, the rice purchase wasn't a response to Trump tariffs.



You say the Wikipedia article has nothing to do with your original statement, but I think if you actually read it you would see that it does. Excerpt:

In May 2019, China's industrial output growth fell to 5.0%, which was the lowest rate in 17 years.[252] Exports fell by 1.3% in June compared to the previous year; imports declined 8.5% in May and 7.3% in June.[253] According to an analysis by Peterson Institute for International Economics published in June 2019, China had lowered tariffs on imports from countries other than the U.S. from an average of 8.0% to 6.7%, while average tariffs on U.S. imports rose from 8.0% to 20.7%.

In short, China purchased an insignificant amount of rice while increasing its tariffs on U.S. goods by twelve percent. Do you really think the rice purchase was a response to tariffs?

Sponsored