Crisis Fuels Backlash on Trade

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by TraderZones, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Crisis Fuels Backlash on Trade

    I am STILL trying to figure out why it is such a bad thing if we are protectionist.

    Aside from raw materials, what exactly does this country need from others? We have such a massive trade deficit, how about if we slap on huge tariffs, cut the trade agreement umbilical cords.

    We have the know-how to build everything ourselves.

    Build 1000s of factories (especially automated factories). Build TVs again in the US and everything else. Use the stimulus to claw back our manufacturing and other services to fill OUR domestic needs. We will have full employment. Sorry China. Sorry India. Sorry everyone else.

    Countries that want to sell TO the USA, must purchase at least 80% of the sales value FROM us in goods and services.

    Somehow, everyone whines when the USA tries to protect something, when they themselves do it.

    I don't WANT to be China's economic / jobs program.

    I don't CARE if Mexico is unhappy with our border fence to keep out illegal immigrants.
  2. The topic is very complex, IMO. But for starts, holders of US debt will indeed begin "manipulating" currency to support their own nations. How does that affect USD? One guess.

    Have you noticed all the "currency manipulation" cries, warnings, and requests in the news lately?

    Maybe not the straightforward answer you want, but hopefully enough to give you pause for pro-protectionism.

    Once unthinkable, now unstoppable
  3. clacy


    I think a trade war wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the US.
  4. inomad


    I think that playing the protectionism game is not a smart option for US. Yes, US will recover some deficit and will gain some jobs ,but only for short term.
    Because on the international market, US will have to compete with China, India, Korea,Japan, etc and other countries which offer same products but cheaper. So it's gonna be a slow economic death, imo.
    So , instead of protectionism , better be for change technologies and be ahead of other countries on the global markets. Imo, US power is the ability to change rapidly and to attract new talents from whole world who can help US to lead in new technologies.
  5. And those new talents work for peanuts. They'll take the little money they made in the US, which is a lot to them, and then move back to their piss poor home country and live like kings.

    Fuck 'em. Close the doors.

    The US can't create science or engineering talent when there is little incentive to do so for Americans. There are plenty of American engineers and scientists who have graduated recently and can't get a job because the foreigners will undercut them in terms of pay.
  6. This backlash is just the US waking up after taking it from exporting countries for 20 years. It's about time. The asian countries fully well know their development was due from the american economy overspending, if they have the least bit of decency they will accommodate a bit and won't start politics wars.
  7. This country was built on trading, and some of you are suggesting we would benefit from protectionism and building the Great Wall of America? Nonsense.

    Don't be so gullible and believe everything the media has to say on the subject—it tends to be a little one sided. Yes, other countries do break the rules, but guess what? So do we. The net result has been pretty damn decent for the U.S. Reverting to a closed border protectionist society—something like China until recently—is a giant step backwards.

    If the Chinese, one of the most “leave us the fuck alone and stay out of our country” societies on the planet, figured out it’s in their best interest to open up to the world, maybe some of you should reconsider the idea of closing OUR economy to the world. Not that it would ever happen or get anywhere close. It sounds ridiculous just typing it.
  8. Only if all "Americans" are "financial professionals". :cool:
  9. This thread rightly belongs in the Economics section. What is wrong with protectionism is that it creates market distortion and inefficiency. A buy American policy is a de facto government subsidy. Is it a good thing to bailout the U.S. car industry? Short term it looks like a good idea but if the industry isn't viable it's a band aid that will only prolong the agony. If so it would be better to use that money elsewhere. There is an opportunity cost to be paid.

    It's like in trading. Do you keep a losing position hoping it will turn around or do you sell it at a loss and move the proceeds to a better looking opportunity?

    Using foreign inputs where they are the most efficient option frees up more resources to be used in areas where the U.S. is more efficient.

    Maybe an argument could be made for temporary support but such measures when enacted have a terrible propensity for becoming more permanent than initially envisioned and will draw retaliatory action.
  10. Whats more important than having the natural resources? The know how is distributable, the cheap labor is key, once you've cornered those three things you rule. I realize the US is technologicaly the most advanced nation on Earth but a few million dollars in the right place and you can attract the people to your team. One of the reasons cited that we would find ourselves invading the middle east to an even greater degree is that we will not be held hostage to our need for any strategic natural resource. Reasonable people have to get across the table from one another understand one another and not let competition subvert good faith. Imagine the capital thats put into the military, though it can be thought of as stimulus in perpetuity, bestowing on the world an equivalent amount of
    usefull goods, education, research, opportunity, medicine. The old swords into plowshares may be the best advice ever given.
    #10     Feb 1, 2009