Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday November 22 2016, @09:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the we're-going-back-to-bartering dept.

Donald Trump says he will issue an executive action on his first day in office to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In a video updating Americans on the White House transition, the President-elect described TPP as a "potential disaster for our country".

[...] Mr Trump said his administration instead intends to generate "fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores".

Sky Correspondent Greg Milam said: "Donald Trump has been very critical of what trade deals have done for American workers and the damage that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did in the 1990s - particularly to low-income workers in the Midwest, who it turns out voted for Mr Trump in huge numbers."

Source: Sky News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:02AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:02AM (#431594) Journal

    We care less about exports, than we do about imports, because the imports are what cost us - the American home makers and heads of households - the most. I, the individual head of household, would prefer to buy a slightly more expensive version of the item I need, that is made here in America, because doing so employs a fellow American. That fellow American might be my son, your daughter, or that knucklehead we saw on television last year at a protest.

    I especially prefer the slightly more expensive item, when that added expense gets quality. Chinese made, especially, is pretty poor quality most of the time. (Another poster recently informed that is not true everywhere - here in America, we get the worst of the worst, it seems.) I would rather pay for a shirt that is sewn together properly, than something haphazardly thrown together and stitched crooked. (Personal experience shopping at target for a shirt.)

    Exports are all well and good, I had nothing bad to say about them, but I really don't give a small damn about Hollyweird's exports. Or the record labels. Or software. I can't eat any of that shit, it doesn't heat my home, it won't mow my grass, nada.

    America is far to infatuated with IP - imaginary property. Hard goods are what matter to me. When I need an auto part, then I care about import/export.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:54AM (#431612)

    > We care less about exports, than we do about imports, because the imports are what cost us - the American home makers and heads of households - the most.

    Huh?
    Then you should want them to be as cheap as possible.

    Your arguments are irrational because you are trying to backfit a rationalization into your preconceptions. Your position does not follow from your logic, your logic follows from your position. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that there is significant complexity, and a serious potential for backfire, then at least be willing to admit you just don't care.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:07AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:07AM (#431693) Journal

      No, it is you who is incapable of understanding a rational line of thought. Included above is the likelihood that the higher priced item is going to be produced by people within my own local economy. Higher prices, in a healthy economy, beats hell out of the low prices in an unhealthy economy.

      But, I don't expect most Americans to understand that today. In school, do they still teach the concept of "quality"? Do they teach anything at all about the economy?

  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:00AM

    by tftp (806) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:00AM (#431721) Homepage

    I, the individual head of household, would prefer to buy a slightly more expensive version of the item I need, that is made here in America

    Unless you roll back a century of social advancement, the local version of anything will cost you ten times as much as Chinese junk. Asian goods are sold and delivered for less money than a US company needs to ship you an empty cardboard box! The "social advancement" that US businesses and customers are paying for include not only social security, but also strong defense, efficient policing, clean cities, rule of law (YMMV), human rights, fair elections, good healthcare (if you can afford it,) and many other things that developing nations do not have. Those things aren't cheap. Many people are working for the government; some are even doing a good job. We pay their salaries, we buy them buildings, vehicles, tools... all that would have to be undone if we intend to compete with Swaziland for the cheapest t-shirt in the world.

    I, personally, do not understand how a modern country with high standards of living can compete with a developing nation that has tens of millions of disposable workers - short of closing the borders with sky-high tariffs. But even that will become a disaster; who remembers the time when expensive household goods like copper pans and pots were cherished, maintained and faithfully served the needs of several generations? Most essential goods are made in the developing countries by the lowest paid workers from cheapest materials possible - and the majority of households cannot afford anything that is more expensive! Their income is already carefully tuned to be sufficient only for the basic needs.

    • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @12:00PM

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @12:00PM (#431791) Homepage Journal

      There was a sufficient shortage of working men after WW2. What we are seeing is nothing but the natural balance being restored. During WW2 all European men with non-essential skills were sent to war and most were dead. Asia and Africa didn't have any skilled labor class due to its planned obliteration by western industrialists via colonialism. Russia for some reason didn't believe in free trade so its high quality products (and yeah, they were way way better in quality than anything produced in USA) were limited to countries aligned with its policy - the so called 2nd world countries. In that time, in that world, it was easy for Americans to work hard and get paid way above international average. American dream was achievable. In that world USA pushed for open markets and free trade agreements. American governments, both democrats and republicans, punished countries which safe-guarded home market and they pushed globalization (and democracy) everywhere.

      Now the world is back to where it used to be. End of USSR became curse in a disguise - people didn't need American protection anymore and there are only so many wars USA can start before its public demands - we don't want to die in foreign land for pointless wars. India and China (and very rapidly, Africa) have embraced capitalism and people buying western media, propaganda and life-style in the hegemonic order of globalization are demanding to participate in it on equal terms. People who were raised to believe that their culture is regressive and western liberal ideology is progressive, now think they are unfairly being asked to live in regressive culture by rise of protectionism in USA. Let's face it - the poor of USA are living better lives than middle class of many 3rd world countries - and it is not because of some innate greatness that is under attack, it is because of very specific condition after WW2 which left USA mostly undamaged are eol. The pendulum is swinging back to the center now. Nuclear proliferation is making wars between development oriented countries rare and globalized media makes most people chose a comfortable life over war.

      I, personally, do not understand how a modern country with high standards of living can compete with a developing nation that has tens of millions of disposable workers

      Indeed. May be if USA wouldn't have waged unwinnable "war on terror", the world wouldn't balk at the idea of a protectionist USA which still enforces globalization in other countries under threat. But most world now thinks that USA will avoid initiating WW3 and hence a protectionist USA is only going to contain the fallout to USA. Rest of the world will remain globalized and will continue to trade among itself. May be Chinese stuff will become expensive now that dollar wouldn't have much value. I am not sure. This is why easy legal immigration is the only savior of USA elite. The unemployed are just going to become poor.

      Their income is already carefully tuned to be sufficient only for the basic needs.

      No. You make the fatal yet common assumption that 'those' countries were always poor. They were not, and they are not going to remain poor. The 'other world' is not as static as you think.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:39PM (#431959)

    I remember that protectionist crap from the 70s. didnt. help. one. fucking. bit. But please, continue to spout 'buy 'murkin!'.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:49PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:49PM (#431965) Journal

      "didnt. help. one. fucking. bit."

      Because Suzy Homemaker, and Joe Sixpack were to damned stupid to understand. Dollars shipped outside of the local economy never come back. Dollars spent within the local economy circulate, and circulate, and circulate, round and round they go.

      But, trot on down to Walmart, and buy up some more foreign stuff, 'cause it's cheap. You get what you pay for. You're paying for that infamous "redistribution of wealth" that the globalists are calling for. Impoverish the wealthy, and toss some peanuts at the world's poor to induce them to do the jobs that used to pay well.