Donald Trump

Wake Up, Trump-Hugging Peaceniks: Trump's Tony Soprano Trade Policy Means More War

Being against NATO doesn't mean he's for peace.

|

Trump Cross Dressing
Dreamstime

Trump is to the cause of peace what Lindsey Lohan is the cause of sobriety. Yet some antiwar peaceniks on both the left and right are suggesting that Trump may be better than establishment candidates when to comes to stopping America from making war around the world. Why? Because he opposes NATO and America's other post-Cold War entangling alliances.

But this is a dangerous delusion, I note in my column at The Week. Trump's bellicosity, hair-trigger temperament, disturbing tendency to see the world as "us versus them," and, above all, his militant protectionism is the very essence  of war. His anti-NATO statments don't stem from a philosophy of peace but an ideology of violence. I note:

[H]is prescription to "Make America Great Again"—which is to seal it off from the world by erecting walls, tearing up trade agreements, and forcing American companies to stay put. Trump may think that he's invented a brilliant new economic approach. In fact, it is so old—and such a perennial temptation for socialist dictators—that there is an actual term for it in economic literature: import substitution. Even in quasi-democracies like India, it has led straight to the poorhouse.

And as Frederic Bastiat is reputed to have said: When goods can't cross borders, soldiers do. In other words, Trump's foreign policy isolationism won't lead to peace because his trade policy isolationism will create the pre-conditions for war.

Go here to view the piece.

NEXT: SiriusXM Suspends Glenn Beck for Brad Thor's Comments on Trump; Brad Thor Responds to His Critics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah, Shikha. Even when you have a point (Trump’s economic policies are pretty bad), you have to overegg the pudding (and will LEAD TO WAR!)

    Tell us, please. You identify India as a country that adopted similar policies at one time.

    How many wars did they fight because of their trade policy?

    1. Shika has already told us that the only reason India has a racism problem is because Trump inspired the Hindus to hate the Muslims.

      1. This is known.

        1. Trump’s trade policies are bad, but in other respects (like his criticizing the illegal invasion of Libya, and expecting Japan and South Korea to assume their own defense rather than using the U.S. as a “tripwire” for World War III) Trump makes more sense than does Clinton, who caused the deaths of thousands of people by spawning the invasion of Libya, which she convinced a reluctant President Obama to do.

          Trump was right to criticize the loathsome, money-wasting neoconservatives like Bill Kristol for just wanting to invade foreign countries out of a utopian belief that all Third World peoples can practice democracy if invading Americans show them the way. The neoconservatives think that inside every Third Worlder is an American screaming to get out (a fallacy they share, oddly enough, with progressive supporters of expanded immigration from the Third World, who don’t understand that many in the Third World don’t support western notions like free speech and checks and balances, preferring an authoritarian strongman).

          The neoconservatives (many of whom prefer Hillary Clinton to Trump) have practically bankrupted this country, since (like their mentor, Henry “Scoop” Jackson) they tend to support both a big welfare state, and a big warfare establishment.

          Trump has criticized the “invade the world, invite the world” mentality in which the U.S. destabilizes a Third World country, then allows Third World refugees into the U.S. The former is clearly a valid point.

          1. “who don’t understand that many in the Third World don’t support western notions like free speech and checks and balances, preferring an authoritarian strongman”

            Hah!! That’s cute. You think it’s only people in the THIRD World who support neither free speech and checks and balances and who prefer authoritarian strongmen!! Oh, you poor, naive, idealist!!

      2. If Trump has a time machine, why isn’t he selling it?

        There would be a YUUUUUGE!!!! market for that.

        1. Because a mediocre military fiction author might use it to go back in time and kill Baby Trump?

      3. This is such bullshit, all these yokels pretending they like Trump because he is more antiwar than the other candidates. I am looking at you, LRC crew. I am not a huge GayJay fan, but in what universe is Trump more antiwar than Gary? Total fucking bullshit. No, these dudes love Trump because they are insular immigrant haters and are using this antiwar thing as a cover, because deep down they know there is nothing libertarian about massive border restrictions and the police state that goes along with it.

        1. Johnson’s FP views aren’t much different from the status quo.

          1. They are far from perfect, but still way better than “bomb the shit out of the” Trump.

            1. Nah.

              http://ouramericainitiative.tu…..zi-fascism

              Sorry man, GJ has the same position lol.

              1. “Fighting and defeating ISIS wherever they are is not “intervention”. It is stopping violent jihadists whose stated objectives are to kill Americans, wipe Israel off the map and destroy the very freedoms ? including religious ones ? upon which our nation is founded. It is protecting us from those who would and are doing us harm.” ?Gov. Gary Johnson

                1. Y’all niggas been duped lulzzz

                2. Like I said, far from perfect. But Gary has not called for killing families of terrorists and has not doubled down on torture. In what way is Trump better? In no way.

                  1. Shrug. I’ll take exiting NATO, a disavowal of nation-building, and having nations militarily dependent on the US pay for their share.

                    I’m not that concerned about the human implications of torture policies. Only thing that does bother me about it is its potential for inducing false confessions.

                    An offhand comment about “going after families of terrorists”?well, let’s be honest, putting their lives in the balance would be brutally effective (it tended to work for the Soviets). But it’s not clear that Trump was actually advocating to murder them.

                    Even if he was, he’ll end up walking back. A policy like that’d never be allowed to come to fruition, so worrying about it is senseless.

                    1. I’ll take exiting NATO

                      There is no way that is happening.

                    2. Okay, well I’ll take the worldview that’s at least skeptical of transnational entanglements. And is cognizant of the fiscal reality that America can’t afford to be world police.

                    3. You are cherry picking. He doesn’t want to end NATO, but update it. Not concerned about torture? Mmmmmkay then. I think my work here is done.

                    4. You know who else executed terrorists’ families?

          2. So, Gary Johnson would assassinate an American citizen with a predator drone without giving that American due process?

            Tell me more, please.

        2. Looking at the lineup, I think Trump looks like the most antiwar president we’ve had in a long while. Though since Obama, I’d hardly trust him staying that way in office. Either way, comparatively, I’m hoping he wins over Clinton, even if I will still vote third party, and, you know, barring any literal miracles happen that result in a third party to win.

          Johnson’s trying to court pro-war people at the moment, so things overall for “antiwar” look bad. I mean, when Trump seems like the biggest hope (in that he is the most antiwar with a shot at winning) for a reduction in war, something’s going horribly wrong, but even the third parties are kinda abandoning the principle.

          Right now I’m kinda between Johnson, who I’m growing kinda wary about what he’s been saying on foreign policy, and Castle, who’s consistently antiwar, though I don’t like his immigration policy and also the Constitution Party has less chance of winning than even the Libertarians.

          That being said, if Trump wins and doesn’t flip flop on foreign policy, that’d be great!! Not ideal, or anything, but it’d be much better than the current state of affairs. Obama’s metamorphosis after taking office leads me to believe Trump will be no better, but there’s a slight glimmer of hope for a more restrained foreign policy with Trump. None with Clinton, and unfortunately none in the immediate future with third parties.

    2. “Ah, Shikha. Even when you have a point (Trump’s economic policies are pretty bad), you have to overegg the pudding (and will LEAD TO WAR!)”

      As opposed to a certain other presidential candidate who actually did help get the United States into a war and brag about what a “success” the failure of it was.

      1. I thought they all wanted cake.

      2. I like banana pudding with nilla wafers.

        1. I thought you said you were my age, Grandma.

          1. You’re going to look me in the eye and tell me you don’t like to use your old bananas for some delicious banana pudding with nilla wafers?

            1. I make ice cream. The bananas have to be damn near rotten to get the right flavor.

              1. I also like ice cream, and banana bread, banana nuts muffins, banana …

                1. “And a banana cognac, biatch.”

                  1. Templeton Rye has strong banana notes.

      3. You know who else liked pudding?

        1. Pink?

        2. The students at Islington Green School?

        3. George Costanza?

        4. Angelica Pickles?

          1. I think Playa beat you to it.

    3. Basically the US is the last G20 nation to increase its protectionism, which is still lower than any other’s G20’s protectionism.

      It’s just more TrumpHate, if it weren’t then there’s be some balanced argument that Sanders and Clinton and the leaders of every G20 nation support the exact same policies.

      The one positive side to protectionism is that it increases the cost of deficit spending. Protectionism is just another form of taxation, I give not one shit about someone mentally masturbating that some taxes are better than others.

  2. The whole “when goods don’t cross borders armies will” is a nice line for a high school debate. It is, however, complete bullshit that has been disproved time and again and most notably by these two events we like to call the First and Second World War.

    1. Why do you hate brown people?

    2. The phrase does have a very nasty edge, which I wonder if Bastiat intended.

      Mongols in the East, or Germanic tribes in the West, liked the products of civilization, very, very much. Sometimes, they could trade furs or lumber for it. And sometimes…sometimes they’d ask for goods, and if goods weren’t forthcoming, came over to take them.

      1. That is a really interesting way to look at it. Wouldn’t that be the shit if it turned out Bastiat didn’t mean what most people think and was saying “if people can’t buy your goods, their armies will come and steal them”.

        1. Hilariously, looking it up, he meant neither because he never used the phrase.

          Though, as the page indicates, he assumed trade prevents wars through…somehow? I’ll rather say, he believed trade would reduce the likelihood of war

          Finally, with respect to these heavy taxes that you are using as a justification for the protectionist system, have you ever asked yourself whether it is not the system itself that produces them? I do wish someone would tell me what would be the use of large standing armies and powerful navies if trade were free….. But that is the concern of the politicians.

          1. If you don’t think free trade reduces the likelihood of war, give me your libertarian card right now and get ready for your walk of atonement.

            1. Of course it reduces it. Sometimes, that reduction is not enough.

              I’ve been convinced that Thucydides (or Athenian he’s quoting) was right – nations go to war because of Fear, Honor and Interest (or a combination of some). Interest alone doesn’t move them.

            2. What does one have to do with the other? People don’t go to war to get rich, unless their plan is to steal. War always does terrible damage to economies and short of just conquering and plundering, makes both sides poorer. Yet war is a constant in all of human history.

              If you think trade makes it less likely for people to go to war, then you don’t understand human nature or war or why people go to war.

              1. [Stands behind John, shame bell ready]

    3. The whole “when goods don’t cross borders armies will” is a nice line for a high school debate. It is, however, complete bullshit that has been disproved time and again and most notably by these two events we like to call the First and Second World War.

      I’m wearing gray socks, and I don’t even like okra. But there were about seven of them, so we ordered the egg rolls. Then after all that it turns out it was a wrong number and Fred didn’t have the thing after all.

      1. I am sorry your stupid Jerry. I really am. Life is no doubt hard for you because you are stupid. There is not a whole lot any of us can do about it, especially since you seem to take pride in being stupid and not knowing anything.

    4. John, what about US economic sanctions on Japan in the ’30s and early ’40s?

      1. The ones that were passed in retaliation for unprovoked invasion of China, complete with mass murder for fun? And the reaction being invasion of Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia and Siam, areas that had no sanctions on Japan?

        Shit, trains from USSR were still running deliveries to Germany on June 21, 1941. Stalin was doing his damndest to keep Wehrmacht away for another year or two by shipping all the goods required. To the point that (apocryphally, and can’t be arsed to look up two things on a single thread), Germany got fewer goods out of occupying the USSR 41-44 than in 39-41. Irrational from economic point? Sure. Not a lot of comfort to people in Minsk, Kiev or Smolensk in ’41 that German economy didn’t benefit as much.

        1. The reasons why the US passed economic sanctions are irrelevant. John made the claim that WWII “disproves” the notion that “when goods don’t cross borders armies will.” While I tend to agree with him, I provided one example where termination of trade contributed to war.

      2. What pan said. World War II in the Pacific was caused by Japanese expansionism and the US’s unwillingness to allow such.

        1. Yes but the US’s unwillingness to allow such expansionism was manifested in economic sanctions which ultimately led to war. Note: I am not saying the US was wrong to try and defend its interest in the Pacific and in Asia by opposing Japanese expansionism.

    5. Also by a lot (not all) of settler-Indian conflicts in North America.

    6. that has been disproved time and again and most notably by these two events we like to call the First and Second World War.

      How do they disprove it? No one said “when goods cross borders, armies don’t”.

      1. Yes they did Zeb. If one is true, then the reverse is also true.

  3. SHIKHAAA DALMIAAAAAAAAA

  4. oh, I noticed the author, the topic, and realized I can safely not even bother to read whatever tripe she’s putting out this week.

    sorry, Shikha, but my time is valuable and you’ve poisoned your own well here.

    1. my time is valuable

      You made a funny!

  5. That’s a mighty fine paper mache caricature of Chris Matthews.

    1. And god damn, what a tremendous timesink for a payoff that might have been novel however long ago. When I want my protest movement to scream “mime”, I go right to paper mache.

      1. I dunno, dye the hair and expand the ears, you have a functional BOOOSH puppet.

        Dye the hair and airbrush the skin, it can be Rubio.

        Sadly it’s harder to Cruzify it because of mouth shape. But overall, it seems like a reusable prop.

        1. Cruz’s mouth is non-Euclidean and can’t be accurately represented in only 3 dimensions.

        2. Cruz’s mouth is non-Euclidean and can’t be accurately represented in only 3 dimensions.

  6. So, let’s just agree Trump would go total protectionist. Which countries will be sending their invasion forces across the ocean to get our stuff?

    1. You idiot, that’s obviously Ashley Tisdale.

      1. I had to google, and I approve that invasion.

        1. Oh god dammit. That was supposed to be in response to Pompey above.

          1. Still works.

            1. Sometimes brilliance is a curse

        1. Crusty, I think you and I finally can agree on something relating to taste in women.

    2. One good thing about Trump is the puppet makers are back in action. They seem to have disappeared the last eight years or so.

      1. It’s been noticed. Lot of out-of-work papier mache artists are going to get full employment if Trump is elected.

    3. The Mexicans?

      1. Mexicans and Canadians.

      2. They’re not sending their best pi?atas

      3. They’ll be stealing our ass sex & pot! From our Uber-driven food trucks!

    4. We don’t have to worry about them crossing the ocean. Canada is poised, right now, on our northern border, waiting to invade if we cut access to The Cartoon Network, or the minute we try to send Justin Beiber back.

    1. Oh shit, that reminds me… so I was listening to NPR for a few minutes yesterday and for the FIRST TIME in my listening experience they added the words “…and policy failures” to the continuously cited low-oil-price cause of Venezuela’s collapse.

      1. That’s such a brave stance for them to take. So incredibly brave.

        1. To be fair, there was no proof that it was policy failures. But now that the Bolivarian opposition is getting a higher profile, NPR can finally point to them as the problem.

          1. Is “Bolivarian opposition” opposition to the Bolivarians? Or Bolivarian opposition to Maduro because he betrayed Chavismo and the Bolivarian revolution by making the country poor?

      2. Of course there are policy failures. Now. Because Comrade Chavez is long dead, and his successors weren’t up to the task. Incompetents at best, CIA-embedded wreckers at worst. But take heart, there is still hope that positive developments will come from fresh cadres, once incompetents and wreckers are removed (kulaks of course go without saying).

      3. Oh shit, that reminds me… so I was listening to NPR for a few minutes yesterday and for the FIRST TIME in my listening experience they added the words “…and policy failures”

        Well you see, communism socialism Bolivarian socialism has never really been put into practice anywhere it’s supposedly been tried so we don’t really know whether or not the ideology is to blame.

  7. Trump’s Tony Soprano Trade Policy

    I dig the timely pop culture reference.

    1. Perhaps there is a newer, just as popular, HBO show she could reference. Something Iron Bank something.

      1. The Wire?

        1. Arli$$?

      2. Are you talking about Adebisi’s high tarriff on prison cigarettes and spoon sodomy?

  8. Shikha, you ignorant slut. Trump’s proposals pale in comparison to the gun running program Hillary ran in Libya and Syria or the murderdrone program, including extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens, the admin she was a member of executed.

    Sure, Trump talks like an isolationist. But his presumptive opponent applauded the Labor Dept decisions to not allow companies in America to move operations from one state to another (Boeing being the biggest example), she wants to prevent companies from moving overseas by confiscating their wealth (Pfizer) and thinks NAFTA sucks.

    And Trump actually wants some nations we have defended for decades to start paying for some of that. I don’t have an issue with South Korea picking up part of the tab, do you?

    Fucking stupid myopic article. You talk about a boatload of what-ifs, many of which he couldn’t enforce without congressional consent anyway, yet you ignore the actual track record of a war monger and strong arm politician like his opponent.

    1. Look. There are only a few month’s time left for social signalling.

      1. Nah. “Social signalling ain’t got no end”, pilgrim.

    2. I caught part of a Q&A with news outlets and someone asked what he would do to protect coal from the market. His answer was basically deregulation, but if coal can’t hold its own in a free market, it should die. That’s sounds pretty pro-market to me, but I don’t know how sincere that answer was.

      1. Yeah, he keeps talking about radically deregulating huge swathes of the economy and retards like Dalmia ignore that and instead focus on his statements that basically mirror those of his main competition. But she zeroes in on Trump because he’s a boorish anti-establishment candidate that speaks his mind instead of parroting canned talking points.

        Methinks there are a lot of writers out there that are afraid of a Trump presidency not on ideological grounds but rather on the grounds that he might actually make their job difficult. Because ideologically, he’s a mixed bag just like the rest of them…no more, no less.

        1. a boorish anti-establishment candidate that speaks his mind instead of parroting canned talking points.

          About 90% of the anti-Trump energy can be chalked up to either this, or pure partisanship.

          Watch those videos where Trump is overdubbed with a poshy British accent, and tell me that this isn’t mostly class hatred by our new metro-elites and their sycophants.

          1. I’ll vote LP again, but either Trump or Hilary is going to win. If I’m honest with myself, I hope it’s Trump. At least he pays lip service to free markets.

    3. You talk about a boatload of what-ifs, many [most? all?] of which he couldn’t enforce without congressional consent anyway, yet you ignore the actual track record of a war monger and strong arm politician like his opponent.

      Ding ding ding.

      Every criticism of Trump is based on ‘extrapolating from campaign bluster to worst-case-scenario future policy’

      Its possibly similar in character to how Obama’s victory in 2008 was based on many voters/pundits ‘extrapolating from his vacuous campaign platitudes to best-case-scenario future-policy’.

      Comparing Trump-bluster to Clinton-historical-reality is false-equivalence at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

      And this isn’t a particular defense of Trump’s merits (his only real one being ‘not-clinton’); its just boredom with the stupidity of his critics.

      1. boredom with the stupidity of his critics.

        Thanks, Gilmore. I now have something to say at our event review meeting this afternoon:

        “Your stupidity. It bores me.”

        And I think I’ll just leave it at that. Should be one uncomfortable silence. Which pleases me.

      2. Comparing Trump-bluster to Clinton-historical-reality is false-equivalence at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

        Who’s doing that?

        1. Not constantly bringing up Hillary every time you mention Trump is pro-Hillary.

          1. Not really.

            its just that the pants-shitting about Trump’s “theoretical” foreign policy is absurd.

            You’d think what with the way all the “Worst People on Earth” fear and loathe Trump, that there might be some sober acknowledgement that he’s actually promising at least 1/2 of the libertarian preferred foreign-policy stance.

            His (theoretical) trade-policy is one of the worst things about him. But his attitude towards national-security issues is actually closer to libertarian arguments than anyone since Rand. And unlike much of his other blustering bullshit, it seems to be sincere. He’s generally projected a more-paleocon view that the US should generally refrain from sticking its dick into other people’s problems.

            1. His (theoretical) trade-policy is one of the worst things about him.

              It’s the worst thing about him.

          2. I’m not saying that, Sug. But the lack of articles decrying the things Hillary has actively,participated in relaive to the number of apocalypse-predicting articles about what a Trump presidency will bring has been noticeable.

            What’s also been noticeable is the absence of covering when trump says something more,libertarian than Hillary has ever uttered: him saying he will unburden industry from onerous,regulations and will let the free market sort out our energy policies for us.

            I’m no trump fan, but I’d take him over Hillary in a minute. She’s a craven political whore that is responsible for thousands of deaths. Trumps stupidity pales in comparison to that.

            1. the absence of covering when trump says something more,libertarian than Hillary has ever uttered

              There’s been a few articles on those. Mostly to tell us that, this time, he’s lying.

              1. Mostly to tell us that, this time, he’s lying.

                that’s sort of my point as well.

                The pundits want the ability to pretend that they’re mind-readers and can tell what parts of his bluster are *dead serious and real* and which parts are outright lies.

                And the argument is never based on a detailed case on his historical behavior/statements outside of the recent campaign.

                Its just so much, “It is known”. Because the pundits are wise and have this power, you see.

      3. Every criticism of Trump is based on ‘extrapolating from campaign bluster to worst-case-scenario future policy’

        What does it say about Trump, though, that to make him acceptable you have to assume he’s lying his ass off?

        Personally, I take the blond blowhard at his word; he is a fascist who doesn’t have any consistent ideology but is guided by a mercantilist dislike of imported finished goods and an instinctive nativism. One can’t predict what he will do in various circumstances because of this lack of consistency.

        After some reflection, I’ve concluded that he won’t change much; once the civil service figures out what strings will make him dance the way they want, they’ll easily tame him.

        1. I don’t think it says necessarily anything about Trump. It either means his critics are morons who can’t make a cogent argument against him or there are no cogent arguments against him and that fact forces his critics to resort to stupid arguments.

          I don’t know about you but I am betting on moron. it is always a safe bet.

        2. once the civil service figures out what strings will make him dance the way they want, they’ll easily tame him.

          From Bureaucrat Heaven, Sir Humphrey Applebee raises an eyebrow, modestly accepting the compliment.

        3. Personally, I take the blond blowhard at his word;

          So, when he talks about deregulation and pulling back from our interventionist foreign policy, you are cheering him on?

          Or, are you assuming he’s lying?

          1. Neither.

            I see a lot of parallels between Trump and Obama. Both of them promised much, but were vague and contradictory in their pronouncements. Both had a mass of supporters who were pissed off at the status quo and projected their desires on the candidates.

            Obama was tamed by the civil service even before he got into office. He has never once opposed them or disciplined them in a serious way. The story is that the national security establishment broke him by powerpoints designed to scare the shit out of him. Of course, he wanted the IRS, the DOE, the EPA, and the HHS depts to move without let or hindrance because of his biases. And the ones he might not be fans of quickly figured out that so long as they fed his narcissistic ego, they could do whatever the fuck they wanted.

            My guess is that Trump will be similarly tamed. I doubt he will deregulate much; he likes the appearance of calling the shots too much and the civil service will factor that enthusiasm into their power-points.

            As far as less interventions over seas are concerned; historically leaders who hated to look weak tend to get into messes, not avoid them.

        4. What does it say about Trump, though, that to make him acceptable you have to assume he’s lying his ass off?

          That’s not what i said at all. I said critics cherry pick the parts they don’t like and exaggerate them. (while ignoring parts that contradict those predictions)

          I don’t think he’s lying on intl. trade. He’s terrible.

          I also don’t think he’s lying when he says the US should avoid getting into foreign wars that have no US interest…. AND should reduce our commitments to multilateral security agreements

          e.g.

          [Trump]has faced scrutiny for saying that the U.S. has no role in fighting the Islamic State or the ruling regime in Syria….

          That has spurred feverish reaction from rivals.

          “Donald Trump has no idea about this war,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

          He told CNN that the billionaire businessman is an isolationist and lumped him with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the libertarian whose criticism of forward-leaning American power has sparked a deep divide…

          IOW, critics like Shikha take 1/2 of those policies seriously, and *pretend the others are lies*

        5. What does it say about Trump, though, that to make him acceptable you have to assume he’s lying his ass off?

          It suggests those who assume so are goofy dipshits that can’t read people very well.

      4. And this isn’t a particular defense of Trump’s merits (his only real one being ‘not-clinton’)…

        That’s enough reason (drink!) for me.
        I know it’s irrational; but electing Trump (or Johnson) could result in the apocalypse and I would still cheer Hillary loosing.

    4. Is she saying that peaceniks should go for Hillary?

  9. RELEASE THE KRATRUMPKEN!

    1. Trump defense, even when logical, is awful.

  10. Shikha’s post would have been better had she written, “Wake Up Sheeple!”

    1. She’s my least favorite intern.

      1. Lol

  11. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    =========== http://youtube.nypost55.com

  12. Shikha, I would suggest that you go commando in a skirt from now on, so your shit will just fall to floor instead of filling your pants on a semi-weekly basis.

    1. Virginia Postrel: “Man, sometimes I miss my old Reason gig. I wonder if I go there… NEWP!” *closes browser, burns the computer*

      1. Hey, give her a break she “tr(ies) to avoid reading Reason comments because they often make me feel like I wasted a decade of my life working night and day at that place.”

        1. Ha… I’ve been at it longer than she has.

        2. Huh, I often feel that I’ve wasted a decade of life at this place, too. Except, I know it’s been longer than that.

          1. I’d say I have as well, but the wife I met there would probably take exception.

        3. I think the feeling is mutual. I just hope that Shikha feels the same after she shits her pants one last time.

  13. Trump’s appeal is his intention to start up new wars – against immigrants, muslims, blacks, women, the mentally ill, it doesn’t really matter. The promise of a new witch hunt is what excites his followers. When he says “I’m the most militaristic person here, believe me” – believe him.

    1. It all makes sense now. He spent his 69 years in the private sector plotting for,the day he could run for president and wage war after war…congress be damned! Because that’s a better path to power than entering public life decades ago and rarely even being in the private sector except to sit on the boards of companies that donated to her and her husband in exchange for favors or to become an outstanding trader in the futures market.

      1. Well, Trump is a little slow…

  14. What utter nonsense. Free trade…Free trade….Free trade. THERE IS NO SUCH THING! We are neck deep in “trade wars” right now. The US (Obama Administration) just slapped a 256% tariff on cold rolled steel from China. The world does NOT work the way this author and many here at Reason think. There are many ways stealth tariffs get imposed, market manipulation, currency manipulation etc. and all countries engaged in trade do it. Because that is the market, if your not doing it you getting your hat handed to you. I’m so tired of this ignorant, myopic point of view on trade.

    Their message: Shut up and keep taking it in the shorts.

    1. I’ve tried explaining this on here, but to no avail. Most think because an agreement has ‘free trade’ in the title, then it must be so.

      This describes the situation fairly clear: http://original.antiwar.com/ju…..ree-trade/

      1. Trump calls this a “bad deal,” and he’s right ? although his proposed solution, tariffs, will only make the economic dislocation he descries worse.

        But once again, no coherent alternative is proposed. Protectionism has only one advantage in my view – it enables true price discovery of deficit spending.

        You can have deficit spending or free trade. You cannot have both. And only a small minority of Americans truly want to see an end to deficit spending.

    2. If there two parties are allowed to trade products with minimal constraint, you have something that resembles free trade. Tariffs are an unfortunate reality but they can be overcome.

      America and Japan probably make 80% of the world’s tech. America is essentially in charge of the world’s entertainment and defense. We make bazillions of dollars abroad, and that revenue to prop up the welfare system. Meanwhile, can you even name 3 major products that are made in Canada? Are there Vietnamese cars and Malasyian Computers flooding our market?

      NAFTA resulted in a negligible 0.5 trade deficit with Mexico while boosting export revenue by billions of dollars. It created 14 million new jobs and proved to be a boon for the agricultural industry. Why do people think increasing opportunities to sell products in other markets will lead to less jobs?

      You can’t stop people from buying foreign products. The internet will make sure of that. And plenty American products will be made in China as long as healthcare and labor costs go up. China buys a ton of things from us (half the country is ghost town) and they own a large percent of our debt. At the end, the winner is America.

      1. NAFTA good so shut up. That’s what you are saying. NoNONONO, NAFTA did not devastate the textile industry within 4 years. That didn’t happen. Lives destroyed, nonono that didn’t happen.

        “NAFTA resulted in a negligible 0.5 trade deficit with Mexico while boosting export revenue by billions of dollars”.
        No, trade deficit is what props up the wore out dollar. And no it was not 0.5%.

        “You can’t stop people from buying foreign products”.
        Really, no way. Who is even claiming this? You clearly do not understand what is happening.

        “At the end, the winner is America”.

        UH no. Only some individuals are winners in the US. To be specific, wall street. And federal gov.

  15. This is ridiculous. The US has had regimes that’ve been much worse for trade than it is now, w/o going to war vs. the countries now being traded with. Before NAFTA, was there perpetual war in No. Amer.?

    Any candidate other than Trump says these things, this piece doesn’t get written, or at least not published.

    1. David Stockman’s post make more sense than Dalmia:

      “The truth is, Trump’s economic plan may be only semi-coherent at best and surely destabilizing to the extent that he would actually trigger a full frontal trade war.

      But here’s the thing. The status quo policies now grinding toward the cliff are no more viable. It is not surprising, therefore, that flyover zone workers actually do wonder how government welfare and transfer payments can continue growing at 2X the gains in wages and salaries without ultimately impaling the country in debt and taxes.”

  16. Trump’s trade ideas will just wreck the economy, it won’t lead to war. Well, maybe a civil war as he turns the country into Venezuela, but that won’t be quickly.

    You should really write for a tabloid, given your tendency towards hyperbole and hysteria.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.