Winners & Losers In The Trade War

[Swordsmyth]

If our conversation were occurring in a vaccuum you might actually have a point. Unfortunately for your position that is not the case. There are voluminous amounts of hard data aside from citations to legitimate authorities posted all over these forums which demonstrate the errors in your position, including some nice hard facts in the OP. I'm just adding to the mix.

Regardless of what data is posted, however, you invariably simply dismiss or ignore it. So it is evident that you have no interest in having an honest, forthright discussion, merely in finding any excuse you can to maintain your pre-existing dogma.

Epic fail.

I could say the same about you.

There is plenty of data to back up my position but your side just ignores it.

 

[CCTelander]

I could say the same about you.

There is plenty of data to back up my position but your side just ignores it.

Seriously? "I know you are but what am I?" SMH

 

[Zippyjuan]

Swordsmyth will never be convinced that tariffs are anything but wonderful. I think it is because they cause conflicts between countries and weaken both of parties.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Seriously? "I know you are but what am I?" SMH

 

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmyth will never be convinced that tariffs are anything but wonderful. I think it is because they cause conflicts between countries and weaken both of parties.

LOL

No matter how often you tell that lie you can't make it true.

I am on record favoring low tariffs if other countries play fair.

 

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

No matter how often you tell that lie you can't make it true.

I am on record favoring low tariffs if other countries play fair.

Should we have tariffs with the EU? They had offered to get rid of over 90% of tariffs before Trump took office. He nixed that potential deal and instead imposed even more tariffs on them. Who was being fair?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Should we have tariffs with the EU? They had offered to get rid of over 90% of tariffs before Trump took office. He nixed that potential deal and instead imposed even more tariffs on them. Who was being fair?

There was a lot more to that deal that made it bad.

 

[Zippyjuan]

There was a lot more to that deal that made it bad.

Like what?

 

[TheCount]

Companies aren't in the business of underestimating their own future earnings.

If they publish bad news about themselves, you can be sure that they believe it's true, and they're in the best position to know.

The whole world is in a conspiracy against the god emperor.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Like what?

I've told you before, it included sovereignty destroying world government clauses.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The whole world is in a conspiracy against the god emperor.

That's actually pretty close to the truth.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL

 

[Zippyjuan]

I've told you before, it included sovereignty destroying world government clauses.

If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

 

[TheCount]

That's actually pretty close to the truth.

It is the truth. The world is fundamentally math-based, and math is his enemy. Also facts. And logic.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

All you need is an agreement, if one side breaks it the other side can retaliate.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It is the truth. The world is fundamentally math-based, and math is his enemy. Also facts. And logic.

Those things are on Trump's side.

 

[Zippyjuan]

All you need is an agreement, if one side breaks it the other side can retaliate.

You can do that without an agreement. Why sign a free trade agreement? Just tariff each other into submission.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Those things are on Trump's side.

Trump has never let facts get in his way.

 

[spudea]

If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

now who is advocating for globalist managed trade? didn't you just read in this thread from [MENTION=5460]CCTelander[/MENTION] how Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and Ron Paul are against managed trade? Other countries should just follow their teachings because its the best thing for everyone right?

 

[CCTelander]

If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

What you describe is pretty much the exact opposite of free trade. All you need for real free trade is for government to get the hell out of it. Completely.