End the Tariffs, Don’t Bail Out Farmers

[Aristotle]

End the Tariffs, Don’t Bail Out Farmers

-National Review - one of the historically most conservative outlets.

Farmers have been among the many hurt by the ongoing trade war, and they are not a constituency the Republican party wants to lose. Rather than adjust his trade policy accordingly, however, President Trump has decided on another remedy: to pay farmers $12 billion in the form of direct payments, subsidies, and other market interventions. Announced Tuesday, this plan demonstrates how poorly the president’s protectionist campaign is going and reinforces the need to change course.

There is no doubt that American farmers have lost money lately. These costs, however, are consequences of the president’s trade policy. Take soybean farmers, who have been devastated by Chinese tariffs and a collapse in commodity prices in recent weeks.

The superior policy is to shift course and work with our allies to isolate China, beginning with joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to use rifle-shot interventions against Chinese cheating, particularly intellectual-property theft, that don’t have the same potential to backfire as sweeping tariffs. Though President Trump does not seem likely to reconsider his approach any time soon, Republican congressmen were swift to condemn this latest proposal. A critical mass of the congressional GOP still believes in the value of free trade. They have the power to put that belief to use.

[Aristotle]

Trump country hit hard by Chinese tariffs

US farmers could take a significant hit from trade war

[Sier]

I'm of the opinion we should increase tariffs until we do away with the need to trade with China completely. We made the mistake of opening up trade with China fully during the Nixon years, and effectively uplifted and exploded their economy.

I believe the line of thought on that was - Our culture would sufficiently contaminate China to the point where they would be slowly drawn away from communism. That partially worked. They are effectively a communism-light government at this point. However - They are completely at odds with the US and their surrounding countries. They behave poorly, threaten their neighbors, and they do in fact take advantage of the US in trade.

Yes, tariffs hurts the economy (short term). The businesses who benefit from trade with China will hurt. But there are many other countries in the world who can fill a hole that China would leave who need our support more. It would be -more- wise, for instance, to start uplifting some of the more stable African countries with trade an infrastructure. Cheap labor? Check. Mineral rich? Check. Not a communism? Check.

Free-trade like any aspect of government can be abused if pushed too far. Free speech doesn't mean you can say stupid stuff without repercussions. Free religion doesn't mean you can sacrifice children in the street if your personal creed dictates it. Free gun rights doesn't mean you can own a LMG. Free trade shouldn't mean you can uplift evil empires. We call these things "Free", but there are always certain restrictions which govern good sense.

I do absolutely agree with you that the farmers should not be bailed out. They can figure out a different business model, ship their product to someone else, and raise their prices as needed. Most of us are cool with a 10% increase in corn and wheat as a short term thing.

I also agree with you in your last statement that a trans-Pacific partnership would be beneficial.

China is absolutely not our friend, and should not be given the opportunity to be further "Grown" unless they learn to back off. They don't need to be encouraged.

[Rosuav]

Free-trade like any aspect of government can be abused if pushed too far.
Free speech doesn't mean you can say stupid stuff without repercussions.
Free religion doesn't mean you can sacrifice children in the street if your personal creed dictates it.
Free gun rights doesn't mean you can own a LMG.
Free trade shouldn't mean you can uplift evil empires. We call these things "Free", but there are always certain restrictions which govern good sense.

Freedom of speech is one of the most misunderstood things in this world. As a government policy, it should NOT have any limits - the government's job is not to censor speech. For a medium, however, there is no such thing as free speech; if you post something on this forum that violates Frogdice policies, it can and will be removed.

Freedom of religion does not change anything about what's a crime. If I invent a religion that demands that I eat pork on Wednesdays and salmon on Thursdays, I should have the freedom to gather with other people who follow the same religion; but if that religion demands that I *steal* the salmon, then religion or not, I should be arrested for that theft. That's nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Free gun rights? I've no idea what that means in the US, but my understanding would be that all persons are equal in their right to seek to own a gun. Why should that mean you can't own an LMG?

And free trade absolutely WILL mean that you can uplift "evil empires", however you want to define that. If Governor Tarkin buys steel from you and goes and builds a space station with them, sure, you've just traded with an evil empire.

Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they end up with people who can afford them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby, "Yes Minister - The Whiskey Priest"

If you want to divide the whole world into "goodies" and "baddies" and include yourself among the "goodies", then by all means, set laws such that you never help the baddies. But free trade means that sometimes the "goodies" are making use of the freedom, and sometimes the "baddies" are. Or maybe the countries of the world aren't so easy to divide into two categories like that, and we should just have the same rules for everyone. Because that's what freedom means.

[Tartun]

Well said Rosuav. It is refreshing and encouraging to hear such unapologetic argument for liberty from those who aren't just spoon fed it as the sugar on bitter American nationalism.

[Rosuav]

Well said Rosuav. It is refreshing and encouraging to hear such unapologetic argument for liberty from those who aren't just spoon fed it as the sugar on bitter American nationalism.

It's liberty from the point-of-view of someone whose whole life is lived on the internet. Country borders are about as irrelevant to me as they could possibly be - which, sadly, is not truly irrelevant. But it should be. If there's someone in the US who wants my services, I should be able to arrange that. If someone in Czechia wants my services, that should be no different. Egypt? China? Russia? Mexico? The Troll Research Station in Antarctica? As long as you have an internet connection, none of it should matter. And every time country borders DO matter, it's a net negative. Why can't we have free exchange of goods/services/money across country borders? My country should welcome it because money is flowing in. My client's country should welcome it because it's empowering one of their citizens. Everyone benefits. But when the governments of the two countries start bickering, that benefit is dissipated - or, more likely, completely destroyed, since it's just not worth my hassle to try to get through the bureaucracy.

[Sier]

It's liberty from the point-of-view of someone whose whole life is lived on the internet. Country borders are about as irrelevant to me as they could possibly be - which, sadly, is not truly irrelevant. But it should be. If there's someone in the US who wants my services, I should be able to arrange that. If someone in Czechia wants my services, that should be no different. Egypt? China? Russia? Mexico? The Troll Research Station in Antarctica? As long as you have an internet connection, none of it should matter. And every time country borders DO matter, it's a net negative. Why can't we have free exchange of goods/services/money across country borders? My country should welcome it because money is flowing in. My client's country should welcome it because it's empowering one of their citizens. Everyone benefits. But when the governments of the two countries start bickering, that benefit is dissipated - or, more likely, completely destroyed, since it's just not worth my hassle to try to get through the bureaucracy.

I don't think your points in your previous post deviated too far away from mine. But this statement is only good in a world without enemies/rivalries. It only really works if everyone (us and them) pull back from hostility. China attempting to strip all its neighbors of its offshore oil resources and enforce it militarily doesn't really encourage this view.

It's a great, ideal, perfect world scenario.

[Rosuav]

I don't think your points in your previous post deviated too far away from mine. But this statement is only good in a world without enemies/rivalries. It only really works if everyone (us and them) pull back from hostility. China attempting to strip all its neighbors of its offshore oil resources and enforce it militarily doesn't really encourage this view.

It's a great, ideal, perfect world scenario.

Yes, it works nicely in a perfect world. Here's the thing though: it'll work partly in an imperfect world too. The more restrictions you remove, the more you benefit.