Wednesday, August 1, 2018

WARNING Trump Anti-Trade Advertiser Says China Trade Fight Will Be Long,

Peter "I hate trade" Navarro
Peter Navarro, the White House anti-trade adviser, said on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that Chinese predatory trade policies are so embedded in its system that an accord will prove elusive.


“Basically, China would have to revamp its entire economic model, basically, to stop being the predator that it is,” he said. “That’s why a deal with China is going to be tougher than any deal with all of these other entities.”

And then going on to display how totally ignorant Navaro is about economics, he said:

 China is the manufacturing factory floor of the world, and they heavily subsidize their goods.What they do basically is unfair, and they put Americans out of work. They put American businesses into bankruptcy.
China does not put Americans out of work. This is the lump of labor fallacy. There are always jobs. Markets clear including labor markets.

If China is subsidizing the manufacturer of their exports, this hurts Chinese taxpayers for the benefit of  U.S. consumers. Why would an American economic adviser complain about this?  It increases the U.S. standard of living.

As far as bankruptcies, the economy is always shifting to produce what is more valuable to produce. If China is providing goods at a discount, this allows businesses and workers to shift into making other product. Thus, increasing overall economic goods for Americans.

-RW  



10 comments:

  1. --- If China is providing goods at a discount, this allows businesses and workers to shift into making other product. ---

    But someone has to do something to protect the jobs of the American Buggy Whip Workers(R) who also happen to be (happy coincidence!) Trump supporters!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If China is subsidizing the manufacturer of their exports, this hurts Chinese taxpayers for the benefit of U.S. consumers."

    And thus the idiocy of libertardianism is fully revealed. Libertarians are against subsidies...until they aren't. As long as someone else is doing the subsidizing, that makes it okay? Just because the subsidies are externalized doesn't mean they are less toxic.

    Francisco, when the buggy makers went out of business, their capital equipment was bought by the car makers down the street and the workers followed. Do you want American workers to follow the equipment and jobs as they move to China?

    You Fake Americans disgust me with your hatred of Real Americans. This Fake American does not stand with you. You have to go back. I already have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a libertarian I’m against all government subsidies because they are funded with stolen money (deceptively referred to as taxes) and they harm, in this case, Chinese taxpayers. That being said, I’m going to take advantage of all the low-cost products from China that I can even if it temporarily puts some American workers out of a job. Markets clear. And as long as their are human wants and needs there will be jobs available for those wokers who are unemployed because of cheap products from China.

      Just because we (libertarians) buy stuff from China does not make us fake.

      Delete
    2. "And thus the idiocy of libertardianism is fully revealed. Libertarians are against subsidies...until they aren't. As long as someone else is doing the subsidizing, that makes it okay? Just because the subsidies are externalized doesn't mean they are less toxic."

      Shimshon, I'm not sure what "idiocy" you're referring to. Yes, Chinese subsidies are toxic (to Chinese citizens), and if you want to campaign for the Chinese government to end those, more power to you. But their subsidies do not morally or economically justify Trump forcing US consumers to subsidize uncompetitive US producers through tariffs.

      Delete
    3. Chinese subsidies are only toxic to the Chinese? On what basis do you claim this? They are either toxic to the market or they aren't. Countering them (by means of tariffs or other mechanisms) is an understandable and even sensible reaction. Any industry that has to compete against subsidies is going to be "uncompetitive". To say otherwise is pure...idiocy.

      Delete
    4. Chinese subsidies represent money taken forcibly from Chinese citizens and given to certain Chinese producers. It's robbery, pure and simple.

      "The market" is not a person and has no rights.

      I never said that an industry that has to compete against subsidies wouldn't be uncompetitive. My point is a different one: consumers don't care. US producers have no rights to dollars from US consumers; they have to offer them a good enough deal for consumers to part with their money. If US producers can't offer US consumers a better deal than Chinese producers can, then that doesn't justify Trump using force to make it harder economically for US consumers to buy from Chinese producers. Trump is playing favorites, using force to favor certain US producers over US consumers. Your contention is that this use of force against US consumers is a "sensible reaction."

      Delete
    5. The market isn't just consumers. There are producers too.

      Why shouldn't POTUS play favorites? Whose side are you on? You can't just say "consumers" because that's not a side.

      Who's to say prices will go up across the board, in any case? Apple's 80% margin on the iPhone is more likely to down in such a scenario, and their ridiculous valuation be brought down to size.

      I'm just glad you're the loser and getting sick of all the losing you're feeling. I haven't gotten tired of winning yet.

      Delete
    6. Why do you choose to debate with such emotion and vitriol? It's hard to have a productive discussion when you abandon logical, economic, and moral principles. Rather than point out your numerous argumentative errors, I'm happy to let you bask in your apparent victory.

      Delete
    7. There is no possibility of a productive conversation with the likes of you. I speak dialectically with those who speak that way to me, and rhetorically to those who don't. You've made it quite clear that you don't give a crap about the individuals who make up the American market. I mean, the Real Americans who make up that market. Not the Fake Americans, whether the legal or illegal variety, who never cease to undermine the country they inhabit. Notwithstanding the few exceptions to a very demonstrably clear rule. Not All Immigrants Are Like That. Great. The vast majority are.

      Comparative advantage, and by extension, free trade, was never based on anything but thought exercises. There is now a large and increasing body of evidence that it doesn't work in the international arena.

      A nation is not just the sum of what people buy. And what people buy is not just the sum of some bargain-priced imported electronic crap.

      My victory is not just mine alone, and it is not just apparent. Thanks. I'm happy to have the last word.

      Delete
    8. Let me put it this way.

      Let's say you have a choice. A tax system based on tariffs or income or...there is no other choice in the real world, because government has always existed, and will continue to do so, no matter how much you losertarians bemoan it.

      Honest types will answer without hesitation that tariffs are always preferable to income tax, without exception. They are less intrusive by far, regardless of pontificating about choosing favorites etc, and any arguments about how unfair they are to consumers (cue tear-inducing violin music) would be laughed off, as, at worst, consumers would have the same buying power as they do in an income tax regime.

      How are you going to answer the question? Or will you evade, like so many in your intellectually dishonest clique?

      Delete