If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

[Rob L 3,811]

"Keynesian economics and/or socialism has always and will always be a failure. The comments in this thread show once again, why anyone, would be better as president than Clinton or Sanders, even if it unfortunately has to be Trump. "

Not sure Keynesian and socialism are the same but here is Trump v. Friedman as seen by the American Enterprise Institute ( those Bolshies) Some economic lessons about international trade for Donald Trump from Milton Friedman and Henry George

Carpe Diem

Font SizeAA

In the video above Donald Trump’s uninformed, economically illiterate, and childlike views on international trade and trade policy are contrasted with Milton Friedman’s informed, economically sophisticated and mature views on trade. Toward the end of the video, Milton Friedman paraphrases what he considers to be the best argument he’s ever heard for free trade, from 19th century American economist and free trade advocate Henry George, who criticized protectionist trade policies in his 1886 book Protection or Free Trade at a time when President Grover Cleveland was pushing for reductions in US tariffs from an average rate of 47% (very close to the 45% rate Trump has proposed for Chinese imports) at a time when Britain had tariffs of less than 1% and France of 1.5%. Here’s a longer quote from Henry George, Friedman focused mostly on the underlined text below:

Trade is not invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification. There cannot be a trade unless the parties to it agree, any more than there can be a quarrel unless the parties to it differ. England, we say, forced trade with the outside world upon China, and the United States upon Japan. But, in both cases, what was done was not to force the people to trade, but to force their governments to let them. If the people had not wanted to trade, the opening of the ports would have been useless.

Civilized nations, however, do not use their armies and fleets to open one another’s ports to trade. What they use their armies and fleets for, is, when they quarrel, to close one another’s ports. And their effort then is to prevent the carrying in of things even more than the bringing out of things—importing rather than exporting. For a people can be more quickly injured by preventing them from getting things than by preventing them from sending things away. Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade.The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.

Can there be any greater misuse of language than to apply to commerce terms suggesting strife, and to talk of one nation invading, deluging, overwhelming or inundating another with goods? Goods! what are they but good things—things we are all glad to get? Is it not preposterous to talk of one nation forcing its good things upon another nation? Who individually would wish to be preserved from such invasion? Who would object to being inundated with all the dress goods his wife and daughters could want; deluged with a horse and buggy; overwhelmed with clothing, with groceries, with good cigars, fine pictures, or anything else that has value? And who would take it kindly if any one should assume to protect him by driving off those who wanted to bring him such things?

Bottom Line: To hear Donald Trump explain international trade in his infantile way and with his “great misuse of language,” China, Japan, and Mexico are currently “deluging, overwhelming, and inundating” Americans with cheap clothing, cars, and smartphones, and US consumers and businesses somehow need his protection from such an “overwhelming foreign invasion” of low-cost, affordable goods with his 45% tariffs/taxes?? And to use Henry George’s insight, if Donald Trump is elected president and is able to advance his protectionist agenda with tariffs and trade barriers, he would be doing to the US during a time of peace what our worst enemies would do to us in time of war, i.e. waging a war on American consumers and businesses who purchase goods produced outside the country. To further paraphrase George, Americans shouldn’t take it kindly that Trump seeks to protect us consumers by driving off, or raising prices on, the “invasion” of foreign goods that help us stretch our paychecks and significantly improve our standard of living.

[OriZ 3,157]

They're not quite the same. That's where the and/or comes in.

I love Friedman. I agree with 90% of what he said.

See this?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/588216-trump-asks-backers-to-swear-their-support-vows-to-broaden-torture-laws/?p=8041150

Still better than Clinton.

[Rob L 3,811]

Hey I would escape too if I had to actually live in this heat...last year when we were in FL it was in the 90's and we couldn't wait to get back home to VT to what was only 39 degrees at the time lol

I hope it's not this hot when we get there. No Casinos on the itinerary. Just shows and other activities.

??? Other activities ??? You really don't seem like the North Las Vegas type to me

[Rob L 3,811]

They're not quite the same. That's where the and/or comes in.

I love Friedman. I agree with 90% of what he said.

See this?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/588216-trump-asks-backers-to-swear-their-support-vows-to-broaden-torture-laws/?p=8041150

Still better than Clinton.

What is not quite the same? Trump and Friedman? HA I guess not. If you understand free market economics and do not believe in protectionism, every fiber in your being would revolt against what the Donald is saying. And if he doesn't mean what he says, then that says a lot in and of itself.

In terms of trade if the Don had his way the world economy would collapse, with the US first. At least the other candidates get that ( of both parties).

[OriZ 3,157]

??? Other activities ??? You really don't seem like the North Las Vegas type to me

LOL.

No, more like this:

http://www.scenic.com/tours/grand-voyager-and-skywalk#/.Vskhj_lViko

[Rob L 3,811]

LOL.

No, more like this:

http://www.scenic.com/tours/grand-voyager-and-skywalk#/.Vskhj_lViko

Ahh Very nice.

A good experience I am sure

[OriZ 3,157]

What is not quite the same? Trump and Friedman? HA I guess not. If you understand free market economics and do not believe in protectionism, every fiber in your being would revolt against what the Donald is saying. And if he doesn't mean what he says, then that says a lot in and of itself.

In terms of trade if the Don had his way the world economy would collapse, with the US first. At least the other candidates get that ( of both parties).

Socialism and Keynesian economics. They're both bad, just in slightly different ways.

I don't like Donald, his economic policy views make me shudder. I really don't know how many times I need to repeat this. However, I disagree with you that all the other candidates get that and I certainly don't believe the democratic candidates would be good for the economy or foreign policy. Rand Paul definitely understands that which is why he was my fav. I already said I think they are making a mistake by having the current top 3 be the top 3, but that's the democratic process.

Ahh Very nice.

A good experience I am sure

I'm sure it will be. Although my wife's too chicken for the skywalk. I'll be on my own with that one. Not sure how I even convinced her to board a chopper.

Edited March 8, 2016 by OriZ

[Rob L 3,811]

I don't like Donald, his economic policy views make me shudder. I really don't know how many times I need to repeat this. However, I disagree with you that all the other candidates get that and I certainly don't believe the democratic candidates would be good for the economy or foreign policy. Rand Paul definitely understands that which is why he was my fav. I already said I think they are making a mistake by having the current top 3 be the top 3, but that's the democratic process.

I am sorry If I miss why one think the poorly thought out , reckless and willfully ignorant approach Trump is better than all other candidates.

What do you have against John Kasich? why can Republicans not back a rational adult?

[OriZ 3,157]

I am sorry If I miss why one think the poorly thought out , reckless and willfully ignorant approach Trump is better than all other candidates.

What do you have against John Kasich? why can Republicans not back a rational adult?

I don't see Kasich as a rational adult. I don't like him. I have my reasons. Doesn't mean I don't like other republican candidates better. The discussion here isn't whether or not I think there's better republican nominees than Trump for the job because somehow I was under the impression I've made it very clear throughout the last 6 months that I most definitely do.

The discussion is who's going to be worse for the country: Clinton/Sanders or Trump. I think they will, you obviously think otherwise, and that's fine.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

There are a couple of reasons why this is not a fair comparison..

The first is lifestyle choices: People in the EU choose for more free time and social welfare at the cost of more personal wealth.

The second is that we are choosing a higher standard of living for ourselves by borrowing humongous amounts of money and using a large portion of it for immediate consumption - It does drive the economy up but we are in the spend phase now and eventually we will have to pay that money back. We are going to lose actual and potential wealth when we do. This is going to be an issue for the major welfare states as well since most of them are funding their programs through debt which is not sustainable long term.

[OriZ 3,157]

There are a couple of reasons why this is not a fair comparison..

The first is lifestyle choices: People in the EU choose for more free time and social welfare at the cost of more personal wealth.

The second is that we are choosing a higher standard of living for ourselves by borrowing humongous amounts of money and using a large portion of it for immediate consumption - It does drive the economy up but we are in the spend phase now and eventually we will have to pay that money back. We are going to lose actual and potential wealth when we do. This is going to be an issue for the major welfare states as well since most of them are funding their programs through debt which is not sustainable long term.

Both of your points are beside the point of the article.

It matters not at all how much the Europeans like or don't like working. Fact still remains most European countries would not be among the richest US states. I've been to about half of Europe and it annoyed the ####### outta me when around 1pm you expect to go get some food and they only sell drinks lol...siesta!

The second point - This article was talking strictly about median income. It's not talking about how much one chooses to spend. The spend phase is actually already over, even in the US. It has peaked and while so far has not dropped noticably, eventually it will be meaningful.

Edited March 10, 2016 by OriZ