So give up your manufacturing industry for low quality cheap prices lol. Sorry, but that argument doesn't work anymore. Countries are now focusing on deglobalization.
@@mastert5618Would you agree that the economy acts as a tool? Some tools work better in some periods than others, and that protectionism and free trade has different uses for different periods?
The best analysis of "free trade" was actually written in the late 19th century by the American political economist Henry George. This book was read into the Congressional Record by a number of Congressmen and mailed to millions of their constituents. Although Henry George championed the ability of people to trade with one another across borders, he warned that the potential benefits of free trade would be significantly reduced because of others laws and taxation policies that protected "rentier" interests (i.e., those who produced nothing but because they controlled land and natural resources were able to charge others "rent" for the mere right of access). Thus, George called for the elimination of all taxation, except for an annual tax on the potential rental value of land (and land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum).
Great video and i wish more people understood this concept today. Why are so called conservatives who supposedly are for open markets so anti free trade.
Because it's more valuable to a politician to cave to lobbyists from an industry pushing for protectionism to help their clients make more profits than to stand by their principles.
@@buster117 I fully understand your point. But, what you are saying is you want social intervention. Which is not capitalism and is not free trade. US manufacturing can not make everything here anymore as those days are gone and never coming back. They was over in the 1920's .
@@fashfront You can not make everything here in the USA. for 3 main reasons. #1 materials.,#2 workers, (not enough) #3 cost!. (USA and any other western country) as to have some amount of global trade.
@@allenrnewbauer Friedman fails to mention that the founders of America, strongly adhered to the protectionist economic ideology. You know very well ( that is if you have a brain ) that global free trade has brought America to her knees. We actually gave Multinational Corporations the privilege of giving US Middleclass wealth to the CCP.
He is a genius. I have read and watched every single presentation of his and I am still impressed each time I do. Each of the ideas this man had introduce a whole new world on economics based on hard facts, not just theories.
Protectionism promotes only the big business lobbyist and promotes a moral hazard. Bailing them out is a form of a moral hazard, because if they fail to compete globally they get bailed out with our tax payers money.
his explanation on the concentrated interests of a particular industry vs the diffused interest of everyone is something that needs to be heard more. it also applies to another more recent growing problem; copyrights. i think copyrights go too far because there's concentrated interests for having ridiculously stronger copyrights, and very diffused interest in fighting over the top copyrights.
Free trade means lower prices in US at the expense of losing jobs and low pay. Tariffs mean giving local businesses an advantage or level playing field against lower price/labor from abroad, and potentially keeping business from going abroad, but results in higher prices and can affect quality of local goods. Raising minimum wage is an arbitrary regulation that does not take into account each businessman circumstances, resulting in business closures, higher prices to consumers, and loss of low paying jobs to self-service and automation. Government should not be in the business of price fixing or wage determination. The market should dictate this. Government should use regulation to promote competition and to deter monopolies. Government should not regulate discrimination because it discriminates by doing so. Quota hiring is wrong and discriminatory. Some jobs are better suited for men and some for women, some for young and some for older. Forcing businesses to hire unsuited individuals to meet quotas is just wrong. Protectionism is fine if you are content with just the products created within or willing to pay more for outside goods. The labor wage and supply/demand pricing will eventually reach equilibrium. Initially it will be very painful. Local economy will simply be a macrocosm and eventually disconnected from outside price/labor levels. An example of this is comparing California to Mississippi. In California you make much more money than in Mississippi. However, you pay a lot more for goods, services, property. It is easy to go from living in California to Mississippi. It is difficult to go from Mississippi back to California. If US becomes a closed economic society by strict protectionism, there will become a serious disconnect. US may become like California to the Mississippi world or vice-versa.
The reason why leaving the gold standard was a bad idea was not solely because it led to monetary volatility. It was a horrible move because of the fact that our money is not backed by anything other than our good intentions. Also, if you look at the facts, a 1/10 ounce of silver would buy you a gallon of gas in 1963 and it will do the same today. The dime it was minted into in 1963 devalued almost totally.
National Defense is protectionism also. It cost the american citizen, however that citizen can get up and go to bed with the confidence of being safe. If the american worker earns a living wage he also sleeps at night knowing that he can provide for his family.
From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain.
We got rid of most protectionism completely in the 1970's and our wages haven't gone up since relative to inflation. At the same time, college costs have skyrocketed! We used to have protectionism and we averaged about 4% annual economic growth with it from 1870-1975. Compare that to about 2% economic growth from 1975-2011 with free trade being more dominant. Since China joined the WTO, growth has been anemic. Soft-protectionism is the best system.
MegaAstrodude college costs have to die with government involvement in colleges increasing most directly student loans, the 80s economics were much better then the 70s Jimmy carter is known as about the worst president economically
I agree that the primary reason for a fall/stagnation in wages in developed nations is globalisation resulting from freer trade (as opposed to financialisation), but nonetheless overall the world as a result has become richer and there are- I cannot emphasise this enough- many other factors at play.
Globally free trade is the most efficient but having tariffs is worth your neighbor having a job. We can't just have everything be made in China without actually producing anything ourselves. There's a limit to how much you can rely on imports.
Firms produce in China because in China they are free to do everything against environment, against workers. They have also financial interest to build a factory in China because the China gouvernement low taxs or give money to the firm to go in their country. It is call unfair competition but thank to the corruption it work pretty well :) (Sorry for the bad expression I'm not English).
I would like to correct you if you don't mind. You can't import anything without money. Why am I stating something so obvious? Because if you can afford to buy imports you are already contributing to the economy by doing something. You are producing 'something', be it services or other things.
@sopwithcamelus Well the world is already dependent on China and the USA. If any of those countries' economies were to somehow be destroyed, the world would enter into a big depression. The USA already depends on its biggest enemy, but I believe the government is pushing some kind of agenda that makes Americans think that they should advocate for keeping enemies outside. It's just nationalist bullshit. Happened way too often here in Argentina, and... here we are. I'm not saying there should be no tariffs, but an excess of them will push your country into relying on your own market - and bear in mind, you produce much more than your market can demand. Just some thoughts. Protection brought us here, a very different place from where Argentina was in the beginning of the XXth century. Don't let that happen to the USA
In my opinion, the reason people do not believe in the invisible hand is because there has never really been complete global free trade. I think we would be better off if we got rid of protectionism and established good property rights with transparency. That way countries would be able to specialize in the trades in which they have a comparative advantage of trade, and we would have a more efficient division of labor at a global scale.
I am thinking in the global scale. Economics have always been flawed because the world is divided in nations, and the economic policies made are to benefit some nations at the cost of others. If every country focused on few trades in which they had a comparative advantage of trade we would have less unemployment globally speaking. Soft protectionism in the global level should be used in the very poor countries. I know, however, that it is not politically feasible because politics is not global.
@@morgorththered9040 how can education increases the average wage? 1960s US had higher average salary specially for middle and lower classes, than 2020. So what has happened to US education and infrastructure? Shrank over decades?
After seeing Black Friday's rampant consumption of cheap, unnecessary goods- I am switching sides for protectionism. Imagine how much smaller our wardrobes would be if our ordinary clothes cost thrice their current price? Furthermore, how many jobs we could create with domesticated manufacturing? How much slave labor we could put an end to... There is more than enough competition in USA for staple products (e.g. homes, food, clothing, medicine) to keep prices low and within reason. The only products that should be freely traded are those not available in USA, or without enough domestic competition to keep the prices down.
Well as much as I like Milton Friedman.." free trade" assumes everyone will play by the rules. China has not..and look what has happened to u.s. manufacturing.
How was Friedman bad at determining monetary policy? If Friedman were in control of the money supply, we probably would've avoided the monetary issues of the modern day.
However, I don't think it would be politically feasible because in the short run it would harm some because of the transfer to export industry. Also, some believe that some countries would be militarily vulnerable...
What you don't understand is that everything is a Good. Leaving the gold standard merely meant that the US dollar gained its independence as a Good and people traded dollars for their own value. Dollars, like gold, go up and down in value today. (the same as any other currency)
LibertyPen are you editing this forum. Someone deleted my last post. You are the only person that could have done that. Why would you have denied me freedom of speech?
So, free trade is trade that doesnt have restrictions such as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. Anyway, our trade deals are a mix of free trade and protectionism, with America disproportionately supplying the free market, while other nations supply the protectionism. Anyway, i would argue that one of the primary causes of manufacturing job loss is due to our trade deficits. This year, under Trump, our deficit with China is up 7% and our overall trade deficit with Mexico is up 11%. Also, since China joined the WTO, our trade deficit with them has been over 3 trillion dollars. But, a big problem is currency manipulation, which lowers the costs of US imports and raises the cost of our exports. China. There are many others, but, China is crazy with it. So, your solution free traders is to? China utilizes subsidies, tariffs, and has these crazy restrictions on foreign companies that want to set up there (also have insane forced technology transfer rules). Also, you just want to let them dump their cheap steel. The USA should be a "manufacturing powerhouse that supplies high quality goods instead of having America be dominated by financial institutions who give high interest loans and manipulate capital markets to take wealth away from ordinary Americans." Additionally, do you also really think that these countries will have similar IP laws.? You think they want to have the same IP laws. Wow. Also, the number of long-term unemployed Americans (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) accounted for 23.8 of the unemployed. So, shouldnt take that into account if you want to negotiate a trade deal because.? So, according to EPI, between 2000-2014, the USA lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs. Ill start with NAFTA. So, the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that were lost due to NAFTA was beacuse NAFTA provided incentives for US manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico. Especially as they could then ship the products mostly tariff-free into the US. So, on top of the job loss, American workers would have to take pay cuts because Mexican workers were earning around 1/5th of what Americans were earning at the time. According to MGI, from 2001-2003, the offshoring of manufacturing increased a company's average current recovery of capital income by over 30% and decreased its average labor compensation by over 30%. Anyway, while outsourcing manufacturing results in cheaper products, it also results in job loss and lower American household incomes. Moreover, the availability of low-wage manufacturing in other countries makes it harder for US manufacturers to compete and prosper if they keep their operations within the confines of the US. Moreover, deals like NAFTA and CAFTA lead to a decrease in the number of U.S. manufacturing suppliers, an increase in the number of individuals using welfare and medicaid, and an increase in the federal budget deficit. Not to mention that most of the new employment opportunities are usually in the lower-paying service sectors. Anyway, on average, service sector jobs pay over 25% less than manufacturing jobs. Moreover, it is also tough to get a job in the service sector due to the legal and illegal immigrants. Moreover, according to BLS, hundreds of thousands of displaced workers in the US dont find a new job within six months. Moreover, for the ones that do, again, many are likely to earn less money than they did at their previous job. So, with the lost jobs and the lower wages, many cant keep up with their mortgage payments and they lose their pensions. Also, are you sure that the commitments in regards to free trade are mandatory in regards to services.? Pretty sure that companies can choose what items it will open its borders to in regards to services. Anyway, for developing nations, who have very small consumer economies, we give them special trade breaks that allow their goods, which dont cost that much to make, to enter the US with no tariffs at all. For the more developed nations, we have imbalanced trade agreements that result in better access for their goods into the US than for ours into their countries. So, Costa Rica, the wealthiest CAFTA nation has a per-capita GDP that is around 1/4 the size of ours. Anyway, the 6 CAFTA nations have very small consumer economies and have a huge amount of low wage labor. So, really opening up that area of the world for small and medium sized US firms.? Almost as crazy as your Vietnam arguments. Their minimum wage translates to around 11 USD a month. Lot of buying power. So, in 1993, the year before NAFTA, the US had a 1.66 billion dollar trade surplus with Mexico. By 1995, the first year after NAFTA was enacted, we had a 15.8 billion dollar deficit. In 2014, our trade deficit with Mexico was 53.8 billion dollars. Our imports in regards to cars made in Mexico have increased 5x when looking at before NAFTA and what we see today. In 2017, corporate profits in the USA are almost at an all time high. USD 1,738.6 billion in the third quarter. Anyway, according to EPI, from 1979-2013, the hourly wages of middle-wage workers rose just 6%, or 0.2 percent a year. Further, according to EPI, the wages of middle-wage workers were totally flat or in decline over the 80's, 90's, and 2000's with the exception of the late 90's. For low-wage workers, they fell 5% from 1979-2013. Lastly, again according to EPI, from 1973-2013, hourly compensation of a typical worker rose just 9% while productivity increased 74%. O, sorry for those hard fought for advancements in work place rights American workers, libertarians dont give a shit. Middle class has to pay for those corporate tax cuts to make them "competitive". So, in 2013, there was a total of around 300k companies that exported goods from the US. over 90% were small firms and they generated around 1/3 of the US total known export value. Additionally, small businesses accounted for 63.3% of net new jobs from the third quarter of 1992 until the third quarter of 2013. Anyway, I bring this up because you crazy people wanted to pass the TPP. So, the US would have agreed to exempt foreign corporations from our laws and regulations. Moreover, quite obvious that the TPP would put domestic US firms that dont do business overseas at a disadvantage. So, screw small American firms and foreign companies that want to do business in America shouldnt have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Wow. Hang yourself libertarians. Among all US manufacturers, 96.4% of manufacturing exporters are small and medium sized companies. They contributed to around 1/5 in regards to exports and over 90% of manufacturing importers were small and medium sized; accounted for 14% of the sectors imports.
I wish I could ask Milton; if he was aware of the U.S. Constitution and the early republic's history? Based on his criticism of tariffs on imports and exports he claims the newly operating republic had "his definition" of free trade, no imposts and excises (free trade). But those and almost those ALONE were the source of revenues for the new general government! The question is, what did the early Congress set, as rates, for both? What was the early system that existed prior to Milton's sole exception of John Maynard Keynes's politicization of said tariffs? America grew and prospered wildly under the prior constitutional system and we had long periods of peace, growth, prosperity and virtually no involvement in wars! Sounds like it was a damn good arrangement if you ask me! Clearly, the levels back then didn't cause "trade wars" or unduly piss off governments or producers in other countries. As our economy grew. And as the volume of trade increased, the revenues also grew to pay for the needs of a limited and defined federal government. But the history of man is one of greed and power. And where there is money there are also criminals, in suits, bent on molding government policy to their benefit. These actions ALWAYS cause dislocations in market normalcy - usually resulting in suppressing new and smaller competitors to their market "share" - something "the big boys" don't really care for! Keynes and his "stimulus" attitude opened the doors to crony capitalism and the increased merging of "state" and "business". Of course, Keynesian "economics" (joke) could NOT have become popular without having passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, cementing the banking cartel with a monopoly on counterfeiting "money" to pay for the thousands of "programs" that have eventually been erected. Naturally, the banking cartel loved, embraced and taught Keynesian "economics", rather than Austrian economics, in our universities ever since. Today, the system of plunder has become exactly as the French philosopher and legislator Frederic Bastiat explained in his work, "The Law", a system where everybody is plundering everybody - rather than stopping "legal plunder" and no one plunders anyone! God! Please give us the wisdom and fortitude to reject Satan's system of theft, bribery and corruption before it's too late! www.thenewamerican.com The patriots choice for news and analysis!
LibertyPen, by the term (benefits the masses) you must be referring to the Chinese Masses. It is very clear Free Trade does not benefit US Workers. If you believe it does than you must live inside a bubble.
Actually, its ironically been the farmers who've historically advocated for free-trade. The farm jobs aren't in as much danger as those in manufacturing and family farms wouldn't be in any danger if we didn't tax them so much. Manufacturing jobs are what's completely disappeared. I'd gladly pay 20% extra to have a reliable car and ipad made in USA.
You really don't get it. NOthing would be different. All objects are goods that are backed by peoples' desire for it. The demand goes up> it becomes more valuable etc.
The problem with "Free Trade" is that larger corporations benefited the most from this arrangement because of their ties to Government. Large Corporations have the political power to slant laws in their favor due to lobbying politicians. Large corporations become large due to their political connections. They feed politicians and politicians in turn feed them. Smaller companies do not have the political clout nor the money to buy out politicians, so they eventually become squashed by these larger corporations which makes the playing field completely unfair. I don't begrudge any companies to take their business overseas but why should the United States make it easy for them. Once they take their businesses overseas, they should not get the same rights and protections as citizens, unless they pay for those privileges and services, particularly when they hide revenue overseas. Why should the American taxpayer pay for this advantage which is what it comes down to? All Government services are paid for by the tax payers? This way they would not be so eager to outsource because their would be little benefit in doing so but as long as our Government bends over for them, they will continue to outsource. I do not see this arrangement as Free market capitalism but just a growing Corporatism going against the very idea of Free market principles to lessen Government's influence. The idea of Government should be less influence on the businesses dealings and behave more like impartial referees to make sure the playing field is fair. To trade with a country like China is completely unfair to American businesses, in fact many Socialist countries like Japan subsidies the auto industries and the people get Health care; whereas American Auto companies do not have this advantage making the playing field unfair, encouraging outsourcing.
One thing the free traders will never mention is the impact of free trade on employment. In fact, it is never been, if ever, researched. It was not even in Samuelson's mind or his equations. Economists like Friedman and Samuelson were banking on a miracle, that somehow god would take care of the employment issue. It was Keynes who understood that free trade would have a negative impact on employment. He essentially said free trade will not add jobs or bring back lost jobs.
He had his view on the gold standard because Monetarism is fixing the money supply to keep capitalism growing. Sadly, there is not as much gold available to tie to our dollars, as dollars grow because it has an abstract value that we put while gold will remain gold forever.
You can't have a nation if there is free trade, as the national population would have to migrate to other countries in search of work. I like living in a nation.
I really don't get how he buys the myths. He is for the quantity theory of money. Why does he only recognize the quantity of money collapsing after the great crash of 29 and not the 60% increase during the roaring 20's?
Learn about Henry C. Carry, Friedrich List, political economy, protectionism, that is the American system which lead to the great prosperity of our Republic and others and the modern world, rather than the British Imperial system of free trade / Liberal Imperialism.
@@louiethegreater1 That is because we don't use the American System in America. We use the British System. The very system that the war of independence and civil war were fought to be free of. The British System is the Imperial economic system, which also goes hand in hand with fascism, wars, wage slavery etc.
@@MrApplewine I am assuming that you believe that foreign manufactured goods entering the U.S. Market should have tariffs on them. Also, you believe Most Favored Nation ( MFN ) is a product of globalization and should not be part of US Trade Policy. Multinational Corporations especially should pay high tariffs on goods and services entering the US.
You cannot have free trade without high taxation on the individual who hoard wealth. Adam Smith pointed this out at nauseum in his book. You need to tax the competitive advantage you have to re-skill and develop the industry you have a short disadvantage in. The current free-trade thinking by people like Friedman is one of massive wealth accumulation with nil taxation to benefit the nation. If you don't agree go read Adam Smith again.
The US Merchant Marine is dead. Less than 2% of all international cargo is shipped on the US flag. There is an obsolete law, that all cargoes shipped between US ports must be shipped on US flag ships.
It’s insane that American conservatism has gone from this rhetoric of Milton freedman to Donald trump who appears to oppose free trade agreements. I agree with trump.
Free trade is only sustainable for a country if it can negate the business advantages of other countries with stronger business advantages. This is why tariffs exists. Countries have been freely trading with each other with or without formal agreements since the beginning of time. Free trade is ancient. Milton deals with absolutes. Maximum freedom means unrestrained damage, minimum freedom means slavery 😃
Remaining in the EU means less tariffs and more freedom of movement for goods..? I don't see your point. The UK leaving the EU is bad for everyone and will cripple the UK's economy.
What about how if there is more competition for jobs wages go up, then the consumer would have more money and it wouldn't be slowly transferred away to foreign countries.
They don't have a strong interest at all history has shown, they want to get cheap resources and cheaper labor and weak environmental respecting countries over ours because it is cheaper and they want to help other countries at the cost of American producers
In my opinion, if enough people are educated about how buying foreign products reduces job competition in your own country and transfers money from the prosperous countries to dump countries there shouldn't be any free trade laws made. I think a disaster will be the best way for the people to learn that, and actually I just remembered my Romanian friend telling me that because all their companies were bought out and bankrupted by foreign competitors or just seeing over time, the Romanian people now favour home made goods over foreign ones, where 25 years ago they didn't.
I'm a cheapskate and I'm not ashamed to admit it. If it looks like a housecat and roars like a lion, I'll buy it (this is an analogy). However, economic security is where my cat's at.
I believe modern trade has conditions which must be examined to see if some tenements still hold. Are slavery produced goods fair market? There is little discussion on fair market, slavery and human trafficking.
No son, Detroit fucked itsself up by not learning to ADAPT to a changing market. Building shitty, unreliable gas guzzlers is not what people needed. Betwen 2001 and 2008 Chrysler made ONE car that could get over 30 mpg (Neon). Gas was shooting close to $4/gal and they were advertising the Ram, the 300 and the Charger. Then they wondered where all the sales went. Free trade: Improvise, adapt and overcome!
Oh, so your religious devotion to the free market is full of hypocrisey - that the free market doesn't work and the U.S. auto market is living proof that it became uncompetitive and subjected the entire consumer market to inferior cars at rising prices. Thanks for the clarification.
How to turn a protectionist free trade advocate make a time machine show them future prices of goods . Show them how temporary measure subsidy is still how still going on and how price of foreign goods is still cheper them protected domestic business.
Can you imagine the cost of goods after Trump gets done with his tariff plan? All while we are facing another bubble, and quite possibly financial bust!!! So a hefty tariff to go along with a crippling recession and a U.S. dollar that buys half of what it once did!!
Are you American, you never explicitly say? If you are it is dismaying you care so little for the welfare of your fellow countrymen. I am 28 and know MANY people who went to college...only to find no good jobs awaited them, all are underemployed. What is your job?. I imagine you either very young, in which case you are in school, or fairly old, in which case you probably already have a cushy job. In any case you probably have not had to struggle to make a living and so I expect you to understand
often you can see that the free trade agreements would increase unemployment and increase trade deficits. this is cos the countries do not have equal living standards, pay, taxation, political systems or regulations. hence trade can never be 'free' or 'equal'. some party will naturally have an advantage over the other to start with. isolating tariffs while disregarding all those factors gives an incomplete and partial view of the issue. tariffs and other means of protection can be thought of a way of balancing mechanism against this unfairness or non-equality among economies within countries. free trade would only work if there was a global govt, or maybe it's a way of moving forward towards a global government, which I'm sure not many would be fond of. a market economy could work within a national boundary, that is within a single political entity. but when you talk about trade between two different political entities, it can never be free from the political interventions. either you will have to dismantle all nation states to get to the utopia of free trade, or you can have protections to sustain the national economies of each country. the second option would lead to more stability and better living conditions for all.
I think Friedman in this case might agree with some of the nay-sayers here if negative externalities were a consideration. For example, he said in another speech that taxes should be levied upon vehicles that overly pollute because they affect an uninvolved party (i.e. not the car manufacturer or the driver), but a diffused one: the global environment. The same goes for China because they abuse the environment to make cheap goods. If alive, he'd probably say that China should pay in the form of a tax (i.e. ADD/CVD) linked to estimates of China's globally destructive carbon output, water pollution etc.
A very smart man which I listened to alot over the years, however if a country such as America wants to pay people a descent living wage so they can experience life (let's call it $20 an hour) vs a country like communist China that has no interest in the living circumstances of the people pays (let's call it 5 cent an hour) then of course the consumer would purchase the product of China. At some point free trade is great but we should only trade with countries who have a genuine interest in the well-being and success of their people which includes paying them a decent living wage such as here in America. It's not that they are better at producing the good it is that they produce the good at such a low cost that of course the consumer will buy it. They accomplish this feat off of the backs of the citizens which have no opportunity to do anything different.
Protectionism is the only economic plan that has a long history of success. The concept is, that as long as the world consists of Nation States, Protectionism is the economic principle that economically successful nations will use. Global Free trade works on a global scale. However if you belong to an economically successful nation, that is throwing her markets open to cheap and slave labor manufactured goods. There will be a economic price to pay for allowing elected, or appointed officials to give your economic security to the investment class of the third world.
louiethegreater1 protectiniosm is not for "free" trade, protectionism is what u described at the begining of ur sentence. capitalism is free trade and it dosent exist with big corporation but with small corporation who dont use gouvernement force to eliminate other corporation to compete with them.
NeverStopAsking Why So you are saying that the US was never a Capitalist country until the GATT Rounds were implemented after WWll. Communist China is neither free trading nor capitalist and you don't seem to mind. Our stores are filled with Chinese made goods simply because protective tariffs have been gradually removed since GATT was introduced by the Bretton Wood agreement, in N. Hamshire.
I am a protecrionist because I'm a nationalist. That's the only limit I'd put in an otherwise limited government. If you're afraid of too much power in too little hands, limited government isn't enough. You must also be against globalism.
We really don't need "free trade", we need "fair trade". There is no such thing as "free trade" there never was. Look at the total trade imbalance with China. You can never compete with slave labor, and no environmental standards. You are really competing with the Chinese government, with all the perks that's attached to it. Even countries with simmilar economys cause huge problems. When looking at the political and economic structure they can be vastly different, these issues, can even apply on a micro scale. For the most part, it shouldn't be about $ but whats best for the average Joe, and he's locked out of those meetings, in favor of multinational corporations driven only by $
Richard Thomas The high Skill/Education thing is a myth. When the factories move to low wage locations. So does the high Skill/Education jobs.Its impossible to design things here, and manufacture them there. In north America we think in terms of high tech machinery to get labour costs down. In China they sell the machinery off, as labour is so cheep.Without being on the ground in China you cant understand what is going on. Things like politics to shortages. Also since you do not speak the language and they have billions of people to chose from. That are more educated then you, your not needed either. Things are projected to get much worse in the future. The computers of today will look like sticks and stones in the next 20 years.This will further erode the labour pool. Its even estimated if the trends continue as it has. Over 90 percent of the jobs we know today, will be gone. I don't think even capitalism itself will survive under those conditions.
Richard Thomas "machinery will destroy jobs" of course it will. I worked for a company that had over 20 thousand employees back in the 80's. When I left there were 6 of us. Computers took all the jobs. These were high paying jobs never to come back. The new industry that was suppose to happen fixing and programming them never happened.Should we go back to a horse and buggy when everyone is driving cars, of course not. But what we should be doing is making sure those cars are made here, and not in some slave labour camp in China, where they use political prisoners. You know those radical guys forced to build them, that want freedom and democracy. If you think it will cost more, just think about the costs of not doing that. The people unemployed and on food stamps. While Multinational corporations reap in all the profit and pay no taxes, offshore the wealth.Not to mention since they have all the money, they make all the rules.That's not capitalism any more.
Accually I have, the slave labour camps I refer to, are called political prisoners. The worst being in north Korea. Where china farms off a lot of their manufacturing to. Its really hell on earth.In fact I had the opportunity to talk to one, that spent years there, for something his grandfather did.Get your self educated as the liberal/conservative (one of the same) media will never tell you these things.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
“It does protect, it protects the consumer very well against one thing, it protects the consumer against low prices.” -Milton Friedman
So give up your manufacturing industry for low quality cheap prices lol. Sorry, but that argument doesn't work anymore. Countries are now focusing on deglobalization.
@@mastert5618Would you agree that the economy acts as a tool? Some tools work better in some periods than others, and that protectionism and free trade has different uses for different periods?
The best analysis of "free trade" was actually written in the late 19th century by the American political economist Henry George. This book was read into the Congressional Record by a number of Congressmen and mailed to millions of their constituents. Although Henry George championed the ability of people to trade with one another across borders, he warned that the potential benefits of free trade would be significantly reduced because of others laws and taxation policies that protected "rentier" interests (i.e., those who produced nothing but because they controlled land and natural resources were able to charge others "rent" for the mere right of access). Thus, George called for the elimination of all taxation, except for an annual tax on the potential rental value of land (and land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum).
Henry george was right
LAND VALUE TAX ME DADDY GEORGE
But really Henry George was great.
Great video and i wish more people understood this concept today. Why are so called conservatives who supposedly are for open markets so anti free trade.
Because it's more valuable to a politician to cave to lobbyists from an industry pushing for protectionism to help their clients make more profits than to stand by their principles.
Because free trade forces a high wage economy to compete with a low wage economy. The American worker should not complete with the Chinese.
@@buster117 I fully understand your point. But, what you are saying is you want social intervention. Which is not capitalism and is not free trade. US manufacturing can not make everything here anymore as those days are gone and never coming back. They was over in the 1920's .
@@fashfront You can not make everything here in the USA. for 3 main reasons. #1 materials.,#2 workers, (not enough) #3 cost!. (USA and any other western country) as to have some amount of global trade.
@@allenrnewbauer Friedman fails to mention that the founders of America, strongly adhered to the protectionist economic ideology. You know very well ( that is if you have a brain ) that global free trade has brought America to her knees. We actually gave Multinational Corporations the privilege of giving US Middleclass wealth to the CCP.
He is a genius. I have read and watched every single presentation of his and I am still impressed each time I do. Each of the ideas this man had introduce a whole new world on economics based on hard facts, not just theories.
Could you name some of those hard facts.
Protectionism promotes only the big business lobbyist and promotes a moral hazard. Bailing them out is a form of a moral hazard, because if they fail to compete globally they get bailed out with our tax payers money.
As opposed to now that we have free trade and bailouts are a thing of the past...
Thank you for the comment, so few understand what free trade means to developed nations.
Free trade that is not reciprocal destroys the prosperous nation.
his explanation on the concentrated interests of a particular industry vs the diffused interest of everyone is something that needs to be heard more. it also applies to another more recent growing problem; copyrights. i think copyrights go too far because there's concentrated interests for having ridiculously stronger copyrights, and very diffused interest in fighting over the top copyrights.
Free trade means lower prices in US at the expense of losing jobs and low pay.
Tariffs mean giving local businesses an advantage or level playing field against lower price/labor from abroad, and potentially keeping business from going abroad, but results in higher prices and can affect quality of local goods.
Raising minimum wage is an arbitrary regulation that does not take into account each businessman circumstances, resulting in business closures, higher prices to consumers, and loss of low paying jobs to self-service and automation.
Government should not be in the business of price fixing or wage determination. The market should dictate this.
Government should use regulation to promote competition and to deter monopolies.
Government should not regulate discrimination because it discriminates by doing so. Quota hiring is wrong and discriminatory. Some jobs are better suited for men and some for women, some for young and some for older. Forcing businesses to hire unsuited individuals to meet quotas is just wrong.
Protectionism is fine if you are content with just the products created within or willing to pay more for outside goods. The labor wage and supply/demand pricing will eventually reach equilibrium. Initially it will be very painful. Local economy will simply be a macrocosm and eventually disconnected from outside price/labor levels.
An example of this is comparing California to Mississippi. In California you make much more money than in Mississippi. However, you pay a lot more for goods, services, property. It is easy to go from living in California to Mississippi. It is difficult to go from Mississippi back to California. If US becomes a closed economic society by strict protectionism, there will become a serious disconnect. US may become like California to the Mississippi world or vice-versa.
Indeed. It's tough to compete against slave labor.
Can a pro video editor remove the coughing person audio. its all i can hear!
What's the intro title song?
The reason why leaving the gold standard was a bad idea was not solely because it led to monetary volatility. It was a horrible move because of the fact that our money is not backed by anything other than our good intentions. Also, if you look at the facts, a 1/10 ounce of silver would buy you a gallon of gas in 1963 and it will do the same today. The dime it was minted into in 1963 devalued almost totally.
Gold is only backed by its perceived value, same thing
@@James_36 you can't just print a thousand kilos of gold though
@@denisjp7154 gold standard just doesn’t work and is easily manipulated
National Defense is protectionism also. It cost the american citizen, however that citizen can get up and go to bed with the confidence of being safe. If the american worker earns a living wage he also sleeps at night knowing that he can provide for his family.
Wow my acid kicked in really hard at 5:03
From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain.
We got rid of most protectionism completely in the 1970's and our wages haven't gone up since relative to inflation. At the same time, college costs have skyrocketed!
We used to have protectionism and we averaged about 4% annual economic growth with it from 1870-1975. Compare that to about 2% economic growth from 1975-2011 with free trade being more dominant. Since China joined the WTO, growth has been anemic.
Soft-protectionism is the best system.
MegaAstrodude college costs have to die with government involvement in colleges increasing most directly student loans, the 80s economics were much better then the 70s Jimmy carter is known as about the worst president economically
I agree that the primary reason for a fall/stagnation in wages in developed nations is globalisation resulting from freer trade (as opposed to financialisation), but nonetheless overall the world as a result has become richer and there are- I cannot emphasise this enough- many other factors at play.
Globally free trade is the most efficient but having tariffs is worth your neighbor having a job. We can't just have everything be made in China without actually producing anything ourselves. There's a limit to how much you can rely on imports.
Firms produce in China because in China they are free to do everything against environment, against workers. They have also financial interest to build a factory in China because the China gouvernement low taxs or give money to the firm to go in their country.
It is call unfair competition but thank to the corruption it work pretty well :)
(Sorry for the bad expression I'm not English).
I would like to correct you if you don't mind.
You can't import anything without money. Why am I stating something so obvious? Because if you can afford to buy imports you are already contributing to the economy by doing something. You are producing 'something', be it services or other things.
Free trade ignores national security issues. Being completely dependent on your enemy is sheer folly.
@@sopwithcamelus Even Adam Smith made an exception for defence on the issue of free trade.
@sopwithcamelus Well the world is already dependent on China and the USA. If any of those countries' economies were to somehow be destroyed, the world would enter into a big depression. The USA already depends on its biggest enemy, but I believe the government is pushing some kind of agenda that makes Americans think that they should advocate for keeping enemies outside. It's just nationalist bullshit. Happened way too often here in Argentina, and... here we are. I'm not saying there should be no tariffs, but an excess of them will push your country into relying on your own market - and bear in mind, you produce much more than your market can demand.
Just some thoughts. Protection brought us here, a very different place from where Argentina was in the beginning of the XXth century. Don't let that happen to the USA
I think he changed his mind about the Federal Reserve late in his life. So he may have changed his mind on the gold standard.
Hey, isn't it great Trump just placed a 25% tariff in steel, and a 10% tariff on aluminum.
No
In my opinion, the reason people do not believe in the invisible hand is because there has never really been complete global free trade. I think we would be better off if we got rid of protectionism and established good property rights with transparency. That way countries would be able to specialize in the trades in which they have a comparative advantage of trade, and we would have a more efficient division of labor at a global scale.
I am thinking in the global scale. Economics have always been flawed because the world is divided in nations, and the economic policies made are to benefit some nations at the cost of others. If every country focused on few trades in which they had a comparative advantage of trade we would have less unemployment globally speaking. Soft protectionism in the global level should be used in the very poor countries. I know, however, that it is not politically feasible because politics is not global.
free trade is great if you like to work for 20c / hour
If that's all your country has to offer you may consider investing in education and infrastructure a bit.
You mean instead of 2 cents an hour because places your talking about are having a huge increase in quality of life
@@morgorththered9040 how can education increases the average wage? 1960s US had higher average salary specially for middle and lower classes, than 2020. So what has happened to US education and infrastructure? Shrank over decades?
After seeing Black Friday's rampant consumption of cheap, unnecessary goods- I am switching sides for protectionism.
Imagine how much smaller our wardrobes would be if our ordinary clothes cost thrice their current price? Furthermore, how many jobs we could create with domesticated manufacturing? How much slave labor we could put an end to...
There is more than enough competition in USA for staple products (e.g. homes, food, clothing, medicine) to keep prices low and within reason. The only products that should be freely traded are those not available in USA, or without enough domestic competition to keep the prices down.
You'd have the same thing under protectionism only prices would be higher.
Well as much as I like Milton Friedman.." free trade" assumes everyone will play by the rules. China has not..and look what has happened to u.s. manufacturing.
Absolutely. The irony is that Milton Friedman prided himself as a Monetary Economist, and yet monetary issues were the place he was the worst at.
How was Friedman bad at determining monetary policy? If Friedman were in control of the money supply, we probably would've avoided the monetary issues of the modern day.
However, I don't think it would be politically feasible because in the short run it would harm some because of the transfer to export industry. Also, some believe that some countries would be militarily vulnerable...
What you don't understand is that everything is a Good. Leaving the gold standard merely meant that the US dollar gained its independence as a Good and people traded dollars for their own value.
Dollars, like gold, go up and down in value today. (the same as any other currency)
Question... What if one country has free trade with other country... And the second has children working, or slaves etc...
Would free trade work? How?
Pat Choate, Alfred Eckes, and even Ha Joon Chang.
LibertyPen are you editing this forum. Someone deleted my last post. You are the only person that could have done that. Why would you have denied me freedom of speech?
i think what he means when he says that is it gives people options. I believe he would have liked competition over the currencies
Yeah free trade did Detroit so well.
Shit cars shit people. Thank god we don't buy those pos anymore.
Well they became complacent and didn’t get their act together. Car manufacturers in Japan just did their job better.
I agree with him on everything except monetary issues. Leaving the gold standard was a dissaster. :-(
I will only support free trade if we become a libertarian country. I do not support free trade in a mixed economy.
So, free trade is trade that doesnt have restrictions such as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. Anyway, our trade deals are a mix of free trade and protectionism, with America disproportionately supplying the free market, while other nations supply the protectionism. Anyway, i would argue that one of the primary causes of manufacturing job loss is due to our trade deficits. This year, under Trump, our deficit with China is up 7% and our overall trade deficit with Mexico is up 11%. Also, since China joined the WTO, our trade deficit with them has been over 3 trillion dollars. But, a big problem is currency manipulation, which lowers the costs of US imports and raises the cost of our exports. China. There are many others, but, China is crazy with it. So, your solution free traders is to?
China utilizes subsidies, tariffs, and has these crazy restrictions on foreign companies that want to set up there (also have insane forced technology transfer rules). Also, you just want to let them dump their cheap steel.
The USA should be a "manufacturing powerhouse that supplies high quality goods instead of having America be dominated by financial institutions who give high interest loans and manipulate capital markets to take wealth away from ordinary Americans." Additionally, do you also really think that these countries will have similar IP laws.? You think they want to have the same IP laws. Wow.
Also, the number of long-term unemployed Americans (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) accounted for 23.8 of the unemployed. So, shouldnt take that into account if you want to negotiate a trade deal because.? So, according to EPI, between 2000-2014, the USA lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs. Ill start with NAFTA. So, the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that were lost due to NAFTA was beacuse NAFTA provided incentives for US manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico. Especially as they could then ship the products mostly tariff-free into the US. So, on top of the job loss, American workers would have to take pay cuts because Mexican workers were earning around 1/5th of what Americans were earning at the time. According to MGI, from 2001-2003, the offshoring of manufacturing increased a company's average current recovery of capital income by over 30% and decreased its average labor compensation by over 30%. Anyway, while outsourcing manufacturing results in cheaper products, it also results in job loss and lower American household incomes.
Moreover, the availability of low-wage manufacturing in other countries makes it harder for US manufacturers to compete and prosper if they keep their operations within the confines of the US. Moreover, deals like NAFTA and CAFTA lead to a decrease in the number of U.S. manufacturing suppliers, an increase in the number of individuals using welfare and medicaid, and an increase in the federal budget deficit. Not to mention that most of the new employment opportunities are usually in the lower-paying service sectors. Anyway, on average, service sector jobs pay over 25% less than manufacturing jobs. Moreover, it is also tough to get a job in the service sector due to the legal and illegal immigrants. Moreover, according to BLS, hundreds of thousands of displaced workers in the US dont find a new job within six months. Moreover, for the ones that do, again, many are likely to earn less money than they did at their previous job. So, with the lost jobs and the lower wages, many cant keep up with their mortgage payments and they lose their pensions.
Also, are you sure that the commitments in regards to free trade are mandatory in regards to services.? Pretty sure that companies can choose what items it will open its borders to in regards to services. Anyway, for developing nations, who have very small consumer economies, we give them special trade breaks that allow their goods, which dont cost that much to make, to enter the US with no tariffs at all. For the more developed nations, we have imbalanced trade agreements that result in better access for their goods into the US than for ours into their countries. So, Costa Rica, the wealthiest CAFTA nation has a per-capita GDP that is around 1/4 the size of ours. Anyway, the 6 CAFTA nations have very small consumer economies and have a huge amount of low wage labor. So, really opening up that area of the world for small and medium sized US firms.?
Almost as crazy as your Vietnam arguments. Their minimum wage translates to around 11 USD a month. Lot of buying power.
So, in 1993, the year before NAFTA, the US had a 1.66 billion dollar trade surplus with Mexico. By 1995, the first year after NAFTA was enacted, we had a 15.8 billion dollar deficit. In 2014, our trade deficit with Mexico was 53.8 billion dollars. Our imports in regards to cars made in Mexico have increased 5x when looking at before NAFTA and what we see today. In 2017, corporate profits in the USA are almost at an all time high. USD 1,738.6 billion in the third quarter. Anyway, according to EPI, from 1979-2013, the hourly wages of middle-wage workers rose just 6%, or 0.2 percent a year. Further, according to EPI, the wages of middle-wage workers were totally flat or in decline over the 80's, 90's, and 2000's with the exception of the late 90's. For low-wage workers, they fell 5% from 1979-2013. Lastly, again according to EPI, from 1973-2013, hourly compensation of a typical worker rose just 9% while productivity increased 74%. O, sorry for those hard fought for advancements in work place rights American workers, libertarians dont give a shit. Middle class has to pay for those corporate tax cuts to make them "competitive".
So, in 2013, there was a total of around 300k companies that exported goods from the US. over 90% were small firms and they generated around 1/3 of the US total known export value. Additionally, small businesses accounted for 63.3% of net new jobs from the third quarter of 1992 until the third quarter of 2013. Anyway, I bring this up because you crazy people wanted to pass the TPP. So, the US would have agreed to exempt foreign corporations from our laws and regulations. Moreover, quite obvious that the TPP would put domestic US firms that dont do business overseas at a disadvantage. So, screw small American firms and foreign companies that want to do business in America shouldnt have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Wow. Hang yourself libertarians. Among all US manufacturers, 96.4% of manufacturing exporters are small and medium sized companies. They contributed to around 1/5 in regards to exports and over 90% of manufacturing importers were small and medium sized; accounted for 14% of the sectors imports.
What's wrong with the video after 5:00? Some upload error or was the snowstorm already in there?
Video does not matter, Only need to hear the audio.
I am hoping for bigger and better things - like a 35% tariff across the board.
I wish I could ask Milton; if he was aware of the U.S. Constitution and the early republic's history? Based on his criticism of tariffs on imports and exports he claims the newly operating republic had "his definition" of free trade, no imposts and excises (free trade). But those and almost those ALONE were the source of revenues for the new general government! The question is, what did the early Congress set, as rates, for both? What was the early system that existed prior to Milton's sole exception of John Maynard Keynes's politicization of said tariffs? America grew and prospered wildly under the prior constitutional system and we had long periods of peace, growth, prosperity and virtually no involvement in wars! Sounds like it was a damn good arrangement if you ask me! Clearly, the levels back then didn't cause "trade wars" or unduly piss off governments or producers in other countries. As our economy grew. And as the volume of trade increased, the revenues also grew to pay for the needs of a limited and defined federal government. But the history of man is one of greed and power. And where there is money there are also criminals, in suits, bent on molding government policy to their benefit. These actions ALWAYS cause dislocations in market normalcy - usually resulting in suppressing new and smaller competitors to their market "share" - something "the big boys" don't really care for! Keynes and his "stimulus" attitude opened the doors to crony capitalism and the increased merging of "state" and "business". Of course, Keynesian "economics" (joke) could NOT have become popular without having passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, cementing the banking cartel with a monopoly on counterfeiting "money" to pay for the thousands of "programs" that have eventually been erected. Naturally, the banking cartel loved, embraced and taught Keynesian "economics", rather than Austrian economics, in our universities ever since. Today, the system of plunder has become exactly as the French philosopher and legislator Frederic Bastiat explained in his work, "The Law", a system where everybody is plundering everybody - rather than stopping "legal plunder" and no one plunders anyone! God! Please give us the wisdom and fortitude to reject Satan's system of theft, bribery and corruption before it's too late!
www.thenewamerican.com
The patriots choice for news and analysis!
Yes. Bastiat's The Law is essential reading. Hail fellow patriot, well met.
LibertyPen, by the term (benefits the masses) you must be referring to the Chinese Masses. It is very clear Free Trade does not benefit US Workers. If you believe it does than you must live inside a bubble.
Actually, its ironically been the farmers who've historically advocated for free-trade. The farm jobs aren't in as much danger as those in manufacturing and family farms wouldn't be in any danger if we didn't tax them so much.
Manufacturing jobs are what's completely disappeared. I'd gladly pay 20% extra to have a reliable car and ipad made in USA.
You really don't get it. NOthing would be different. All objects are goods that are backed by peoples' desire for it. The demand goes up> it becomes more valuable etc.
Protectionism vs free trade is a fight between capitalists not for massworkingpeople
You are correct Protectionism produced the greatest manufacturing economy the world has ever known, Plus a middleclass that was the envy of the world.
The problem with "Free Trade" is that larger corporations benefited the
most from this arrangement because of their ties to Government. Large
Corporations have the political power to slant laws in their favor due
to lobbying politicians. Large corporations become large due to their
political connections. They feed politicians and politicians in turn
feed them. Smaller companies do not have the political clout nor the
money to buy out politicians, so they eventually become squashed by
these larger corporations which makes the playing field completely
unfair.
I don't begrudge any companies to take their business overseas but why
should the United States make it easy for them. Once they take their
businesses overseas, they should not get the same rights and protections
as citizens, unless they pay for those privileges and services,
particularly when they hide revenue overseas. Why should the American
taxpayer pay for this advantage which is what it comes down to? All
Government services are paid for by the tax payers? This way they would
not be so eager to outsource because their would be little benefit in
doing so but as long as our Government bends over for them, they will
continue to outsource.
I do not see this arrangement as Free market capitalism but just a
growing Corporatism going against the very idea of Free market
principles to lessen Government's influence. The idea of Government
should be less influence on the businesses dealings and behave more like
impartial referees to make sure the playing field is fair. To trade
with a country like China is completely unfair to American businesses,
in fact many Socialist countries like Japan subsidies the auto
industries and the people get Health care; whereas American Auto
companies do not have this advantage making the playing field unfair,
encouraging outsourcing.
If government has no influence over trade which is what free trade means how could they make policies favoring one over the other
That was a brilliant comment at 5:00.
Free trade does not work when you trading with countries that pay their workers $0.05 a day.😊
It works well for consumers, not so much for exporters.
One thing the free traders will never mention is the impact of free trade on employment. In fact, it is never been, if ever, researched. It was not even in Samuelson's mind or his equations. Economists like Friedman and Samuelson were banking on a miracle, that somehow god would take care of the employment issue. It was Keynes who understood that free trade would have a negative impact on employment. He essentially said free trade will not add jobs or bring back lost jobs.
If we had free trade, I could buy a pallet of Chinese made US dollars at Walmart for $1.98
which of the three will eliminate tariffs if it were solely his choice. 1) obama 2) paul 3) romney?
Paul
He had his view on the gold standard because Monetarism is fixing the money supply to keep capitalism growing. Sadly, there is not as much gold available to tie to our dollars, as dollars grow because it has an abstract value that we put while gold will remain gold forever.
Tough crowd.
You can't have a nation if there is free trade, as the national population would have to migrate to other countries in search of work. I like living in a nation.
I really don't get how he buys the myths. He is for the quantity theory of money. Why does he only recognize the quantity of money collapsing after the great crash of 29 and not the 60% increase during the roaring 20's?
Learn about Henry C. Carry, Friedrich List, political economy, protectionism, that is the American system which lead to the great prosperity of our Republic and others and the modern world, rather than the British Imperial system of free trade / Liberal Imperialism.
Did Friedrich List know that the greatest middleclass the world has ever known was produced by applying the political ideology of protectionism?
@@louiethegreater1 Yes, that is the American System, it includes protective tariffs.
@@MrApplewine Not any more it don't. Nothing in the US is made here.
@@louiethegreater1 That is because we don't use the American System in America. We use the British System. The very system that the war of independence and civil war were fought to be free of. The British System is the Imperial economic system, which also goes hand in hand with fascism, wars, wage slavery etc.
@@MrApplewine I am assuming that you believe that foreign manufactured goods entering the U.S. Market should have tariffs on them. Also, you believe Most Favored Nation ( MFN ) is a product of globalization and should not be part of US Trade Policy. Multinational Corporations especially should pay high tariffs on goods and services entering the US.
You cannot have free trade without high taxation on the individual who hoard wealth. Adam Smith pointed this out at nauseum in his book. You need to tax the competitive advantage you have to re-skill and develop the industry you have a short disadvantage in. The current free-trade thinking by people like Friedman is one of massive wealth accumulation with nil taxation to benefit the nation. If you don't agree go read Adam Smith again.
Actual free trade can never nor will ever exist. It would rip itself apart within minutes.
The US Merchant Marine is dead. Less than 2% of all international cargo is shipped on the US flag. There is an obsolete law, that all cargoes shipped between US ports must be shipped on US flag ships.
It's less efficient than cheaper foreign registered vessels. What's wrong with that?
At least, that is what I think so far, but I am just a student.
It’s insane that American conservatism has gone from this rhetoric of Milton freedman to Donald trump who appears to oppose free trade agreements. I agree with trump.
They are both correct. The issue is that we are not on an even playing field.
Free trade is only sustainable for a country if it can negate the business advantages of other countries with stronger business advantages. This is why tariffs exists. Countries have been freely trading with each other with or without formal agreements since the beginning of time. Free trade is ancient. Milton deals with absolutes. Maximum freedom means unrestrained damage, minimum freedom means slavery 😃
There's no development if goods getting cheaper because of cheap labor with 996 work pattern. I'm disagree with M. Friedman in this case.
shouldn't it be balanced in order to retain domestic employment and quality (safe) production, avoid over-specialization and labor violations abroad
YES, YES , YES, YES. What you are witnessing by men like Friedman, is globalization of the worlds economy.
I wish all the EU remainers would watch this video...
Remaining in the EU means less tariffs and more freedom of movement for goods..? I don't see your point. The UK leaving the EU is bad for everyone and will cripple the UK's economy.
What about how if there is more competition for jobs wages go up, then the consumer would have more money and it wouldn't be slowly transferred away to foreign countries.
They don't have a strong interest at all history has shown, they want to get cheap resources and cheaper labor and weak environmental respecting countries over ours because it is cheaper and they want to help other countries at the cost of American producers
In my opinion, if enough people are educated about how buying foreign products reduces job competition in your own country and transfers money from the prosperous countries to dump countries there shouldn't be any free trade laws made. I think a disaster will be the best way for the people to learn that, and actually I just remembered my Romanian friend telling me that because all their companies were bought out and bankrupted by foreign competitors or just seeing over time, the Romanian people now favour home made goods over foreign ones, where 25 years ago they didn't.
I'm a cheapskate and I'm not ashamed to admit it. If it looks like a housecat and roars like a lion, I'll buy it (this is an analogy). However, economic security is where my cat's at.
hamilton won!
I believe modern trade has conditions which must be examined to see if some tenements still hold. Are slavery produced goods fair market? There is little discussion on fair market, slavery and human trafficking.
No son, Detroit fucked itsself up by not learning to ADAPT to a changing market. Building shitty, unreliable gas guzzlers is not what people needed. Betwen 2001 and 2008 Chrysler made ONE car that could get over 30 mpg (Neon). Gas was shooting close to $4/gal and they were advertising the Ram, the 300 and the Charger. Then they wondered where all the sales went.
Free trade: Improvise, adapt and overcome!
Oh, so your religious devotion to the free market is full of hypocrisey - that the free market doesn't work and the U.S. auto market is living proof that it became uncompetitive and subjected the entire consumer market to inferior cars at rising prices. Thanks for the clarification.
Not true;
Google "not enough gold myth"
How to turn a protectionist free trade advocate make a time machine show them future prices of goods . Show them how temporary measure subsidy is still how still going on and how price of foreign goods is still cheper them protected domestic business.
I think we all know that Friedman was wrong, Trade deficits are harmful, local manufacturing is the vehicle that gives citizens jobs.
See video and then #NeverTrump.
Can you imagine the cost of goods after Trump gets done with his tariff plan? All while we are facing another bubble, and quite possibly financial bust!!! So a hefty tariff to go along with a crippling recession and a U.S. dollar that buys half of what it once did!!
I agree, Tijo!
korea japan alex hiamilton loincoln used prtn. improve there live ALL INDUSTRIALIZE NATION USED PROTN. TO BCOM RICH FREE TRADE MAKE USE POOR
Are you American, you never explicitly say? If you are it is dismaying you care so little for the welfare of your fellow countrymen. I am 28 and know MANY people who went to college...only to find no good jobs awaited them, all are underemployed. What is your job?. I imagine you either very young, in which case you are in school, or fairly old, in which case you probably already have a cushy job. In any case you probably have not had to struggle to make a living and so I expect you to understand
Greetings to man who equib a rebel in the hell for seizeing of the heaven.#octoberrevolution
often you can see that the free trade agreements would increase unemployment and increase trade deficits. this is cos the countries do not have equal living standards, pay, taxation, political systems or regulations. hence trade can never be 'free' or 'equal'. some party will naturally have an advantage over the other to start with. isolating tariffs while disregarding all those factors gives an incomplete and partial view of the issue. tariffs and other means of protection can be thought of a way of balancing mechanism against this unfairness or non-equality among economies within countries. free trade would only work if there was a global govt, or maybe it's a way of moving forward towards a global government, which I'm sure not many would be fond of. a market economy could work within a national boundary, that is within a single political entity. but when you talk about trade between two different political entities, it can never be free from the political interventions. either you will have to dismantle all nation states to get to the utopia of free trade, or you can have protections to sustain the national economies of each country. the second option would lead to more stability and better living conditions for all.
This speech aged like a glass of milk.
I think Friedman in this case might agree with some of the nay-sayers here if negative externalities were a consideration.
For example, he said in another speech that taxes should be levied upon vehicles that overly pollute because they affect an uninvolved party (i.e. not the car manufacturer or the driver), but a diffused one: the global environment. The same goes for China because they abuse the environment to make cheap goods.
If alive, he'd probably say that China should pay in the form of a tax (i.e. ADD/CVD) linked to estimates of China's globally destructive carbon output, water pollution etc.
If you listen closely at 6:55 you can hear a protectionist chocking on pure wisdom
Now china out produces USAs ship building capacity 8 to 1. Yey Milton 0.o
Thank unions and the jones act for that
A very smart man which I listened to alot over the years, however if a country such as America wants to pay people a descent living wage so they can experience life (let's call it $20 an hour) vs a country like communist China that has no interest in the living circumstances of the people pays (let's call it 5 cent an hour) then of course the consumer would purchase the product of China. At some point free trade is great but we should only trade with countries who have a genuine interest in the well-being and success of their people which includes paying them a decent living wage such as here in America. It's not that they are better at producing the good it is that they produce the good at such a low cost that of course the consumer will buy it. They accomplish this feat off of the backs of the citizens which have no opportunity to do anything different.
China
I agree with you but most of what you find in Keynes can be already found in Marx.
Friedman changed his mind on central banks. I remember a picture of him sitting on a bunch of gold bars. LOL
Protectionism is the only economic plan that has a long history of success. The concept is, that as long as the world consists of Nation States, Protectionism is the economic principle that economically successful nations will use.
Global Free trade works on a global scale. However if you belong to an economically successful nation, that is throwing her markets open to cheap and slave labor manufactured goods. There will be a economic price to pay for allowing elected, or appointed officials to give your economic security to the investment class of the third world.
yep protectionism is what make slavery
Wow, are you confused, a bunch of greedy plantation owners produced slavery. The slave economy of the south wanted free trade.
louiethegreater1 protectiniosm is not for "free" trade, protectionism is what u described at the begining of ur sentence. capitalism is free trade and it dosent exist with big corporation but with small corporation who dont use gouvernement force to eliminate other corporation to compete with them.
NeverStopAsking Why So you are saying that the US was never a Capitalist country until the GATT Rounds were implemented after WWll.
Communist China is neither free trading nor capitalist and you don't seem to mind. Our stores are filled with Chinese made goods simply because protective tariffs have been gradually removed since GATT was introduced by the Bretton Wood agreement, in N. Hamshire.
I am a protecrionist because I'm a nationalist. That's the only limit I'd put in an otherwise limited government. If you're afraid of too much power in too little hands, limited government isn't enough. You must also be against globalism.
Outdated not valid
cringe
Complete Bullshit.
We really don't need "free trade", we need "fair trade".
There is no such thing as "free trade" there never was. Look at the total trade imbalance with China. You can never compete with slave labor, and no environmental standards. You are really competing with the Chinese government, with all the perks that's attached to it. Even countries with simmilar economys cause huge problems. When looking at the political and economic structure they can be vastly different, these issues, can even apply on a micro scale. For the most part, it shouldn't be about $ but whats best for the average Joe, and he's locked out of those meetings, in favor of multinational corporations driven only by $
fair trade is a buzzword.
David n Yes, the only fair trade is a transaction both parties engage in willingly.
Richard Thomas
The high Skill/Education thing is a myth.
When the factories move to low wage locations. So does the high Skill/Education jobs.Its impossible to design things here, and manufacture them there. In north America we think in terms of high tech machinery to get labour costs down. In China they sell the machinery off, as labour is so cheep.Without being on the ground in China you cant understand what is going on. Things like politics to shortages. Also since you do not speak the language and they have billions of people to chose from. That are more educated then you, your not needed either. Things are projected to get much worse in the future. The computers of today will look like sticks and stones in the next 20 years.This will further erode the labour pool. Its even estimated if the trends continue as it has. Over 90 percent of the jobs we know today, will be gone. I don't think even capitalism itself will survive under those conditions.
Richard Thomas
"machinery will destroy jobs" of course it will.
I worked for a company that had over 20 thousand employees back in the 80's. When I left there were 6 of us. Computers took all the jobs. These were high paying jobs never to come back. The new industry that was suppose to happen fixing and programming them never happened.Should we go back to a horse and buggy when everyone is driving cars, of course not. But what we should be doing is making sure those cars are made here, and not in some slave labour camp in China, where they use political prisoners. You know those radical guys forced to build them, that want freedom and democracy.
If you think it will cost more, just think about the costs of not doing that. The people unemployed and on food stamps. While Multinational corporations reap in all the profit and pay no taxes, offshore the wealth.Not to mention since they have all the money, they make all the rules.That's not capitalism any more.
Accually I have, the slave labour camps I refer to, are called political prisoners. The worst being in north Korea. Where china farms off a lot of their manufacturing to. Its really hell on earth.In fact I had the opportunity to talk to one, that spent years there, for something his grandfather did.Get your self educated as the liberal/conservative (one of the same) media will never tell you these things.