The Average Conservative Doesn't Care About Free Markets
For a long time I have hypothesized (and worried) that the average Republican / Conservative's support for free markets was merely tribal -- the team's official position was pro-free market, so individuals supported the team's position without actually, really understanding it. I have developed this hypothesis after a lot of private discussions with Conservatives who have betrayed many of the same economic mis-conceptions and bits of ignorance that drive much bad interventionist government policy.
Now there is this, from the leading Republican candidate for President:
Speaking at Liberty University today, Trump escalated his rhetoric on Apple's overseas manufacturing, and claimed somehow the US would reclaim those jobs in the future. "We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."
So the Republican who is currently leading in the polls (among Republican voters, mind you) supports government intervention in a successful company's manufacturing and sourcing decisions. Which just reinforces my view that we are dealing with the Coke and Pepsi party. Heads we get statism, tails we get statism.
it's also worth noting that not all debt to gdp is equal.
imagine 2 corporations. each has $1 million in debt and each has $10 million in revenue. thus, each has the same debt to revenue ratio. (equivalent to debt to nominal gdp)
does that mean they are equal in terms of their ability to pay? of course not.
if the first company has $500k a year in profit, then it is extremely creditworthy. it can easily repay the debt in a reasonable timeframe.
if the second company loses $1 million a year, it is far less creditworthy. it has no ability to pay back the debt barring a big change in circumstance.
that latter company is what china looks like. they just keep running up more debt and spending it to cover losses from their corporate operations. the great irony is that they are actually doing is exporting it. they lose money. those savings are passed on to those who buy the products.
chinese debt is subsidizing global consumers.
the problem is that they have no way to pay it back and the amount of debt you need to fund such behavior keeps rising until eventually, the ponzi scheme ends.
that's what's coming in china. i'll bet that 1 in 4 chinese firms has to close before this is all done.
borrowing from the future to fund the present is always seductive, but, inevitably, one day, what was the future becomes "now" and the bill comes.
And if you want China to cooperate, what negotiating technique would you use to make the trade system for fair, with fewer taxes for everyone.
Trump might be on to something.
We also need to get a basket of currency trading method rather than have the US provide the world currency, because that distorts the currency, making it overvalued, permanently, which makes it difficult to produce in that country. That is why China is trying to avoid that at all cost with the Renminbi. Of course, not even our learned economists are talking about that problem. They just whine about the trade deficit on the left, and disingenuously say, well, all the money really comes back (in the form of property and businesses owned by foreign countries) on the right.
Hi from Brazil, I don't know who really supports free market, besides me and very few others around the world. Unions don't like it, Church don't like it, Left people don't like it, Big companies don't like (they want to be monopolies), Parties don't like it as it reduces their power, Govern don't like it for the same reason, minorities usually don't like it as they think they will be harmed, universities are full of left thinking with lots of govern intervention ideas. Right and conservative don't understand that a real libertarian country will create conditions for changes that will challenge their values. Any group or institution wants to avoid being destroyed by new ideas, new competitors, new products, new anything and will not support real competition at work. The first thing a group will do as a group is to create conditions to justify and guarantee their existence forever. In my opinion libertarians are a minority and will always be.
Plus the people President Trump brings in will be excellent, pro business.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Libertarians don't want more people in government who are "pro business", they want people who are pro-freedom. The former tends to see government as a source of favors, subsidies, and restrictions on competitors, while the latter recognizes the importance of real competition and understands that government is a roadblock, not a facilitator, of that objective.
Note that many of the obstacles you cite exist at the state or local level. Trump is running for president of the US, so he won't have much say over those matters. The lack of specifics on his part do not inspire confidence that he can accomplish this aim without some rather heavy-handed tactics at the federal level. There just aren't many levers he can realistically pull at the federal level to change the competitive balance between the U.S. and East Asia when it comes to manufacturing things like small electronics.
"free markets" is a misunderstood term for many. You apparently are referring to free TRADE, as in free international trade. For me, and I believe many others as well, free markets means less regulation by state and federal bureaucracies. ...... think about those cake bakers who were put out of business for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake as an example. Or the requirement to be licensed by the state to cut hair and file finger nails. There are numerous other examples of bureaucratic government interference in the market place.
Free TRADE is not supported by the Democrat base (Unions and SJWs) nor is it perceived as all that great by many Republicans who say that "free trade" is not necessarily "fair trade" precisely because of labor cost disadvantages.
Donald Trump is vague on his plans ..... deliberately so.
"i'm not sure about that. on the one hand, trump is hated by the GOP establishment."
Not true. There are a number of establishment CongressCritters (current and former) who are embracing The Donald as they see him malleable. Just today Trent Lott said he'd vote Trump over Cruz. It's all about The Art of the Deal, something the Beltway Bandits know quite a bit about.
Republicans would be fine with Trump. Hell, they'd be fine with Shrillary, too. All Establishment all the time, the only difference being who gets the pork!
Ted Cruz is the only true conservative running. He's certainly the only one still standing who can stop Trump, though time is running out.
Just as many problems at the federal level. Federal labor law, EPA, FDA are just a few.
More like we find the party machinery to grind up people who just don't fit in their every complex set of gears. Those who fit within the machine get rewarded by the machine. I got sick of watching this nonsense on both parties 12 years ago when I realized it was useless to try and figure out what next big issue the two parties would flip on and who they'd let do the the flipping.
I hate "liberals" because they use emotions to guilt you at every opportunity to promote themselves higher and higher. Just listen to how these people campaign and handle scandals. They don't seek to actually do anything productive but they want you to feel their emotions to some controversy. When the Occupy [Whatever/Wherever] movement came into play I found them to be so boring because once you ignored their emotional politicking they had nothing to say or do about the injustices they perceived and wanted to combat.
I can tolerate Republicans better because I usually know what they mean upfront often bluntly so I can flat out criticize them, even to their face if I have to. Its something I can't do with many "liberals" because well they spin criticism into me being hateful and then they can even be triggered to emotional rages over seemingly ridiculous issues.
I noticed that too. But then, the author of this blog is clearly anti-Trump!!! Guess his govt.-croney-business ventures would be endangered by a Trump presidency.
Look carefully at the quote: "...we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country."
He didn't say he was going to FORCE Apple to do so, he said "get", which I interpret to mean "encourage by policies favorable to American manufacturing"..
Funny how one's point of view can make such a difference in perception.
Now, you're using a straw man in the form of tariffs. Too funny!
Other policies beside tariffs can be used to encourage stateside manufacturing and you know it, but you immediately erected your own straw man. If VIZIO can do it, so can Apple.
Yeah, he should have filed an appeal with the WTO, right? That would really show those Chinese and make them quake in fear.
More appeals and paperwork by more lawyers. We got China out-lawyered by 20-1!
Erik Branstad, is that you? Are you sober, today? Have you killed anyone, lately? Do you need Daddy to bail you out, again?
Are you going to keep using your Poli Sci degree to pretend you're as good as a Chemical Engineer (which you weren't smart or sober enough to major in, yourself) in formulating our fuels? Ted Cruz thinks that's best left to the experts, unlike yourself, who is getting graft from the Ethanol industry to pretend you know such.
I hear there's no reasoning with trash like Erik Branstad, when it comes to gasohol. Do you agree?
earl-
um, no, i'm not. you just heave not read what trump said. he has repeatedly and explicitly called for tariffs including in this specific case. i think you need to acquaint yourself with the actual facts here.
"In a speech yesterday Donald Trump said he would impose an import tax of 35% on goods such as Apple’s iPhones."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2016/01/19/trump-could-cost-us-consumers-6-billion-per-year-by-imposing-a-35-tariff-on-apples-iphones/#2715e4857a0b622a476dcde9
you trump supporters are hilarious. this thread has been extremely illuminating. it appears than very few of you actually have any idea what donald is saying. there must be 10 of you on this threat talking about this plan like it's a plan to make the US taxes lower. it's not. read what the guy actually said.
you are embarrassing yourselves. i am not using a straw man, i am pointing to a simple, clear, verifiable fact.
MNHawk, thanks for this info. I found out about Eric Branstad's killings here. He was the governor's kid so he ended up paying a $15 fine for killing those two people while driving his daddy's campaign van. Almost certainly he was drunk but, like Ted Kennedy, he skated given his provenance. The story about him getting a helicopter ride to the hospital while the soon-to-be dead guy having to go by ambulance is illuminating.
So now his daddy is governor again and Eric's got a sweet job as the boss of an outfit called America’s Renewable Future which is ...committed to pushing presidential candidates in both parties to support the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard i.e., committed to maintaining concentrated benefits financed by diffused costs. In this case the benefits are concentrated on Iowa corn farmers and Eric Branstad's no-doubt lavish salary, while the diffuse costs are borne by me and every other driver who are forced to pump crappy, ethanol-laden gasoline into our cars.
Oh, and his governor daddy is a member of the Grand Old Party.
so, if we threaten ford in mexico and our own company, apple, that's going to scare china? seriously? do you even listen to yourself?
if one accepts the (false, but lets go with it) premise that it's worth provoking a trade war with china, then you go after CHINESE companies, not ALL companies and especially not AMERICAN companies.
the simple fact is this: china has been gutting itself and sending the surplus here. they have done an incredible amount of harm to themselves and given the US consumer the benefit.
the idea that tariffs will make us manufacturers move back here (trumps plan) and create jobs is a joke. they won't.
they will build lights out factories and use automation. at $1 an hour, it's cheaper to hire people. at $12 an hour, it's cheaper to use machines. a move to the US is a move to robotics. but it will make an iphone far more expensive. this will reduce sales significantly, harm apple, and harm the US consumer.
you guys need to actually read what trump is saying. this is not "clever brinkmanship and tough negotiating" this is economic suicide that does NOT threaten china meaningfully and threatens the US more.
I think it's hard for a lot of establishment politicians to embrace free trade in a wholesale sense. For almost anyone elected to office, there is likely to be a constituency that could be harmed by exposing the domestic economy to freer trade, whether defined as international trade barriers or local regulatory strictures. The beneficiaries from free trade tend to be dispersed, and the marginal benefit to them is small and hard to directly observe, which is why free trade policies don't encourage the formation of large voting blocs.
i disagree. he IS hated by the GOP establishment. they just may hate cruz more (though most prefer him). but neither is loved by the gop old guard, they just know they have to make a hobson's choice. all their guys never got off the launchpad.
this election has a truly awful choice of leading candidates. it's the worst since the 70's. the only good news is that what we are really seeing here is disgust with the 2 parties and their old guards. voters are desperate for a candidate who is not a political dinosaur. maybe we finally get some change. better still, maybe the GOP and the DEMS eat themselves and we get the reactionary religious right that has so harmed the gop and the socialist than have made the dems so awful to fragment and a meaningful 3rd party can emerge.
the coke and pepsi of team donkey and elephant has led us to every presidential election having no choice 70% of americans like.
bible basher vs communist is not a good choice. we need to do better.
true, trump is neither, but he's also a horrid crony capitalist who is economically illiterate and socially reactionary and crazy, so he's king of the worst of both worlds. he's not the "good center" that likes rights and liberty, he's a combo of the "bad edges" that wants to impose social and economic doctrine.
bingo. trump is a horrendous crony capitalist who has thrived on backroom deals and political favors. he is NOT pro free markets, hes' pro patronage and political favoritism even though it has wickedly negative sum results.
"bible basher vs communist is not a good choice."
Where you see 'bible basher' I see Constitutional conservative (and this is coming from an atheist!) Not sure who the communist is in your statement. Bernie's the socialist, Killary's the criminal, and Trump certainly has Fascist tendencies.
The point I'm making is that GOP establishment-types (damn, labels don't work anymore) are certainly rallying around Trump. They know Trump can be dealt with, while they fear Cruz will blow up everything cushy they rely on because of his damn principles!
Do you purposely confuse issues? Trump has threatened a Tariff on China, not Apple. I am not aware of his comments on Ford, but I am sure it is similar.
Please, you may not like the guy, but don't make stuff up.
marque-
no, you are just in denial of simple, verifiable facts.
trump is threatening "imports" not "china". he is threatening any US firm than manufactures abroad including ford in mexico, whi is a part of NAFTA.
you are just trying to rationalize trumps absurd policies by ascribing a goal to them that is incorrect and ignoring the fact that they are a bad way to achieve that goal even if we accept that such a goal is worthwhile.
it's obvious you have no idea what he is actually saying. you are making up an agenda for him, but he has already told us what his agenda is.
he want to stop us firms from manufacturing overseas. he is not separating out "in countries that tax imports from the us". it's a blanket policy. it's avowed goal is to create jobs in the US. even if we accept your far fetched premise that this is just a bluff, it's a stupid one.
why tax imports from countries with which we have free trade? (like mexico) it's not just stupid, it's actually illegal.
if his goal were the one you ascribe to him, he'd be targeting china, not everyone.
you are the one making stuff up. seriously, you have no idea what your own guy is saying and are trying to hide that fact behind bluster and accusation. (ironically, the key tactics of your staggeringly economically illiterate candidate)
Brazil is a very similar to the US in so many ways. Brazil is fifth in population rank, the US is fourth. Both have very racially diverse populations. Brazil is sixth in land area rank vs. the US's fourth. Both gained their independence within 50 years of each other: 1822 and 1776. But the US was a libertarian majority country in the early part of its history whereas I don't think Brazil ever was. It is my impression when visiting Brazil that it is a center-left country vs. the center-right US. The majority of the Brazilian immigrants to the US who I know maintain their leftist politics. Comparing the economies of the two countries, I just don't think Brazil ever had a chance specifically because it didn't have a libertarian founding.
It's a shame because the Brazilians I've met both here and in Brazil are on he whole smart, hard-working, very nice people.
Trump is saving the GOP from irrelevancy after Kristol and the Neocon mafia (Trotskyites) nearly destroyed the Republican Party.
We tend to (often, incorrectly) use the party name Republican/GOP interchangeably with conservative.
However, both parties are an amalgam of groups with several philosophical threads and interests in common, a result of and a necessity from our political processes. So, it is easy to point out inconsistencies between members.
That said, Trump is not a great example to call on as an example of conservatism. IMHO, he is a populist (i.e. opportunist) who will espouse whatever he needs to win (as in Henry's comment). His history belies any real ties to conservative principles Trump may claim.
As to his supporters, of course one has to wonder. There are many who claim they are Republican, who are quick to yell "RINO!" at the smallest disagreement with another, that must now be suffering from acute cognitive dissonance with their support of Trump, who is the most RINO of all the candidates, and a crony to boot (and Trump proudly promotes it as a credential).
That people are willing to overlook all the red flags about Trump's past, and his vacuous policy statements, says they probably never were conservative. Instead they are just another group who seek Authoritarianism.
For the sake of clarity, I emphasized that I was referencing the quote that was available, not to the entire speech. Perhaps someday I should undertake -- but I do not look forward to it -- the action of listening to an entire speech of his. The thought of such a step distresses me!
The basic premise of the Democratic Party is that government should intervene. Therefore Democrats are not going to be the default party for libertarian thinking. I have discussed this concept with hundreds of Democrats, and no one has disagreed: Democrats are there to help via government action those who apparently have not gotten a fair shake from the existing system.
"I’m unfamiliar with the blogger and I’m sure he is a peach of a fellow, but like many people, he seems to confuse libertarian with conservative. He’s also confused about what conservatism says about capitalism and markets. That’s a common failing among the politically active. It turns his comments about tribalism into a bit of self-parody, but maybe it is intentional in order to generate comments."
The Naked and the Right | The Z Blog
"To some degree it is understandable that people like that blogger would think it is all about economics. Again, this is the libertarian poison that has oozed into the bloodstream of the Right. Since the Republicans are afraid to discuss culture, they have retreated into synthetic debates over free markets and free trade. You never have to worry about the Left calling you names if you are on the side of Apple, even if Apple is using slaves to make their products.
That I suspect is why so many are so vexed by Donald Trump. His campaign is forcing a debate about what it means to be a conservative. This is bad for the technocrats and the libertarians. Both camps operate from the assumption that culture is meaningless and can be plowed under in the quest for power, material goods or economic efficiency. It’s also a handy way of steering clear of the social justice warriors."
The Naked and the Right | The Z Blog
My point is that there seems to be more points of agreement with the Dems than the Republicans these days. I agree that neither party is remotely libertarian but the Republican Party has tradionally been where libertarian leaning voters camped out. I think that it should be clear these days there isn't any room for libertarians in the Republican Party anymore.
"Both camps operate from the assumption that culture is meaningless and
can be plowed under in the quest for power, material goods or economic
efficiency. It’s also a handy way of steering clear of the social
justice warriors."
Amen!! And that is precisely why I will never be a libertarian.
"Hmm, seems like China was able to replace tariffed US products with internally produced products
"Hmm, seems like China was able to replace tariffed US products with internally produced products,"
Well, of course they were - at higher prices. The whole point of a tariff is to make imported products more expensive, to discourage consumers from buying them.
As morganovich points out, your growth argument is irrelevant.to this discussion of tariffs.
And the tariff issue IS more complicated than the "punching oneself in the face" comment. It should read: "If the Chinese government starts punching Chinese consumers in the face, marque2 believes the US government should retaliate by punching US consumers in the face."
What more than that do you imagine there is to it?
I wonder how many people will be mad when Mexico doesn't pay for the wall... and what's he got against Canadians, anyway? They are practically a state as it is.
In all seriousness though, it's hard to believe anyone actually believes trump is being sincere with any of his outlandish statements. It's atrocious that this jumped up used car salesman is going to get away with selling us a lemon because the losers don't have the good sense to get out of the race and stop fracturing the non trump vote. The equation is simple: 5-7 useless GOP candidates = Ross Perot
I've always assumed that the mistake (and this isn't just Repubs or Conservatives that make it) is confusing "capitalism" with "free market". Trump is most definitely a capitalist, but I would not accuse him of being familiar with a free market.
Your perception of Brazil is correct. Libertarians are minority and this has strong historical roots related to how Portuguese managed Brazil as a colony. Anyway Brazil has a very long democratic tradition with women voting since 1932, and the first black (mulatto in fact) president in Brazil was elected in 1909.
I believe the same is true for the constitution. If the constitution mandated 50% marginal tax rates instead of freedom to own guns, conservatives would complain about the constitution having no moral authority, we didn't agree to it, it's a 200 year-old document, etc. Essentially, the same complaints we hear from the left.
Our leading republican candidate defined.
trump·er·y (trŭm′pə-rē)
n. pl. trump·er·ies
1. Showy but worthless finery; bric-a-brac.
2. Nonsense; rubbish.
3. Deception; trickery; fraud.
That's not a good economic argument. China is hurting its own consumers, so we should hurt ours to show China we're not gonna take it? Seriously?
Believe that, if you wish, but I think you're deluding yourself.
Actually it is. It isn't true that there is no pain on our side, when we are not given the opportunity to sell overseas. It lowers our standard of living and cuts our employment. These facts are conveniently ignored. So yes, China is hurting its people, and is hurting ours. To use leverage to try to negotiate a better deal causes no harm at all, and will benefit both parties.
It's not leverage unless you're willing to do it, and Americans don't benefit from an extra tax.
Ah yes, we can't do anything about the poor behaviors of anyone because well, we are too wussy, so everyone thinks we are weak, and take over lands we support, run over our border and demand welfare payments, and block our goods with impunity - and we just can't do anything about it.
What kind of silly world do you live in? That is why Trump has such a following. People want strong leaders, like we had in say the early 20th century, who are willing to stick their neck out, tell others it isn't right what they doing, and use a bit of negotiating power to get stuff done.
We don't need more wusses like you running the country any more.
I love that you think imposing taxes is macho. Go on, tell me how tough we'd be for going after the poorest Americans. Let's shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to take aim at dem dirty Chinese.
There's nothing masculine or brave or bold or aggressive about a tariff. It's a sign of an economically ignorant buffoon who's afraid of everything, especially those sneaky and inscrutable foreigners.
Everyone is against markets until they need something. Venezuela is finding that out now.
Which of course makes Warren's point totally meaningless.
"they believe in theft, serfdom, racism, and murder."
Well that's hyperbolic to say the least. RWers sure are great at demonizing, you guys are nuts.