Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Trade Speech Undermines Beleaguered Free Trade Consensus

Free trade benefits all participants.

President Trump raised some valid concerns about America's trade relations with the rest of the world in a speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Vietnam on Friday. For example, it's true that U.S. firms are subjected to intellectual property rights violations and industrial espionage by foreign state-affiliated actors.

Unfortunately, Trump's speech was both economically illiterate and factually incorrect. It's likely to undermine what remains of the pro-free trade consensus and embolden those on both sides of the U.S. political spectrum who advocate in favor of prosperity-destroying protectionism.

The case for free trade has been clear for 200 years, since David Ricardo described what has come to be known as the "theory of comparative advantage." Ricardo's 1817 theory, which I have discussed in greater detail elsewhere, states that a country should produce and export only those goods and services which it can produce more efficiently than other goods and services, which it should import. To be fair to Trump, he did, on a number of previous occasions, note that he loves free trade. Regrettably, love does not equal understanding.

Take, for example, Trump's concern over America's "trade imbalance" with China. According to Trump, "the current trade imbalance [with China] is not acceptable."

"I do not blame China or any other country, of which there are many, for taking advantage of the United States on trade," Trump said in his Vietnam speech. "If their representatives are able to get away with it, they are just doing their jobs."

But is the trade imbalance as much of a problem as Trump implies? No, because as any student of economics knows, there is a direct relationship between trade balance on the one hand and the savings and investment balance on the other hand. The relevant accounting formula here is: Savings - Investment = Exports – Imports.

It's true America sells less to the rest of the world than it buys from it. But the United States also receives more capital from overseas than Americans send abroad. Trade balance and capital balance must be equal over the long run, because the American dollars that foreigners earn by selling to Americans can only be spent in so many ways. Foreigners can convert the American currency into local currency, thereby driving up the price of the local currency and driving down the price of the U.S. dollar. That then translates into more competitive U.S. exports and, consequently, lower trade imbalance. Or they can invest their export earnings in U.S. assets—ranging from U.S. government bonds to San Francisco apartments.

Lo and behold, China is hemorrhaging capital at a record speed, and some of that Chinese money is coming to America. China, for all of its growing economic might, is still a country with dodgy property rights and an underdeveloped rule of law. Its government is even more opaque and less predictable than our own. By sending some of their money overseas, in other words, Chinese people and corporations are hedging against expropriation and drastic changes in economic policy. The United States, with its relatively well-developed institutions and investment-friendly policies is, comparatively speaking, a safe haven.

"I wish," Trump continued in his speech, that "previous administrations in my country saw what was happening and did something about it. They did not, but I will. From this day forward, we will compete on a fair and equal basis. We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore. I am always going to put America first the same way that I expect all of you in this room to put your countries first." To be fair, Trump appears to be referring to the uncompetitive practices that I referred to in the opening paragraph. But, a less-than-careful listener would be justified in concluding that free trade is a zero-sum game, where one country's gain is another country's loss.

This is dangerous stuff. For all of its many imperfections, international trade is not only an engine of material progress throughout the world but also a driver of economic interdependence, which makes military conflict less likely. Chimerica, a portmanteau coined by Stanford University's Niall Ferguson, refers to the state of mutual economic dependence between two of the world's most powerful countries—China and America. The relationship between these two will to a great degree determine whether the 21st century can be a peaceful and prosperous one. It's important to get it right!

Photo Credit: Adrian Wyld/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • smalleyd||

    And how will that work out for America as more and more of its assets are foreign owned by actors who do not have America's best interests in mind?

  • Brandybuck||

    They can't pwn our assets if we build da wall!

  • jogibew||

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do... www.netcash10.com

  • plusafdotcom||

  • chemjeff||

    So how do you think this would actually work in practice? I'm genuinely curious, because I see that concern written a lot by people on the right.

    Suppose GM is owned by, say, North Korea. If war breaks out between the US and North Korea, do you expect the Norks to instruct GM to build tanks to invade Detroit? I don't understand what precisely the concern is.

  • ||

    Exactly. The US can nationalize anything physically within the territory of the US, any time it wants, so who gives a fuck?

  • buybuydandavis||

    When property rights cease to have meaning in the US, how will that work out for US citizens?

  • BYODB||

    I think the primary concern is that it means the Norks have access to the plans and machinery required to make things they otherwise would not have access to, or would need to invent on their own, or reverse engineer from somewhere.

    A better question would be if the Norks own a manufacturing plant in the United States to build, say, an Abrams tank would we not expect the Norks to be able to build an Abrams tank in North Korea for their own use?

    Perhaps that's an absurd example, but it's more or less the concern I think. Or at the very least it's the only one I can think of.

  • smalleyd||

    I think that John below sums it very well.

    ... What it says is that we are financing the trade deficit by borrowing money and selling off our assets. Those bonds will someday have to be paid back. The private investment is not a problem. It is hardly clear that selling off our assets to foreign firms to pay for our consumption of consumer goods is in any way sustainable over the long term or in any way conducive to prosperity.

    But hey, why not keep blindly pretending that deficits don't have consequences (trade, budget, ...). I'm sure that it'll all workout just fine.

  • MWG||

    Trade and budget deficits are NOT even remotely the same thing. Also, almost universally, growing economies tend to have trade deficits.

  • vek||

    Like China does now? Or the US did when we actually had a strong and growing economy? Lol, how wrong can you be MWG?

  • ||

    Those bonds will someday have to be paid back.

    Not if we get in a war with the bondholders.

  • Mark22||

    US corporations have a lot of political power, not (just) because they can donate money to politicians, but also because they employ a large portion of US workers, and US workers are US voters.

    And the concern isn't over NK; European and Chinese investors are a much bigger concern: they can exert a lot of political pressure simply by threatening to move factories overseas.

    So, "how would this work in practice"? German unions and public funds own a lot of US shares. Let's say German workers feel threatened by the US auto industry; what are they going to do? Push US companies to increase costs ("better worker protection", "more benefits", etc.), or even just shut down US factories outright. And German unions and public investors aren't motivated by profit, they are motivated by German political concerns.

    That's how that "would work". In fact, it probably already is working just that way.

  • MO_liberty||

    No differently than if they were owned by Americans. An American owner will not have "America's interests" in mind either, they will just have their own personal interests in mind.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Globalist mindset revealed

  • Mark22||

    A lot of foreign investors are public investors (public pension funds, unions, etc.). They are not driven by profit maximization, they are driven by their political interests. They may choose to shut down or sabotage a profitable, competitive US company in order to prop up their own inefficient domestic enterprises.

  • vek||

    Says you! I agree that much of the "elite" now has this globalist mindset, but many don't. Our current president being one. I own businesses and try to source everything I can made in USA. Thing is just 50 years ago being concerned about your country was the common mindset, and it hopefully will be again.

    Even today if only a minority considers national interests, that's more than the zero percent of foreigners who will give a shit.

  • BYODB||


    It's likely to undermine what remains of the pro-free trade consensus and embolden those on both sides of the U.S. political spectrum who advocate in favor of prosperity-destroying protectionism.


    Well, uhh, just for starters the consensus is that we need more protectionism. So your premise is pretty much flawed from the get go.

  • Mark22||

    "What remains of the ____ consensus." is kind of a weird statement, like "what remains of Mary's pregnancy [it just sort of slowly went away]".

  • John||

    That then translates into more competitive U.S. exports and, consequently, lower trade imbalance. Or they can invest their export earnings in U.S. assets—ranging from U.S. government bonds to San Francisco apartments.

    That is very true. What it says is that we are financing the trade deficit by borrowing money and selling off our assets. Those bonds will someday have to be paid back. The private investment is not a problem. It is hardly clear that selling off our assets to foreign firms to pay for our consumption of consumer goods is in any way sustainable over the long term or in any way conducive to prosperity.

    To be fair, Trump appears to be referring to the uncompetitive practices that I referred to in the opening paragraph. But, a less-than-careful listener would be justified in concluding that free trade is a zero-sum game, where one country's gain is another country's loss.

    So Trump is standing up to unfair trade practices, which you admit is perfectly appropriate. Yet, because someone could wrongly interpret that to mean something else it is "dangerous stuff". WTF?

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: John,

    What it says is that we are financing the trade deficit by borrowing money and selling off our assets.


    Let me bring in my unicorn while I read you yapping about equally-mythical "trade deficits."

    So Trump is standing up to unfair [sic] trade practices...


    Oh, my hero!

    While the p...y grabber is defending the virtue of the American Manufacturing Base® maybe he should also defend California from unfair trade pactices from Texas and their lower tax burdens....

    I love it when Trumpistas play Economist. They're so cute!

  • John||

    Let me bring in my unicorn while I read you yapping about equally-mythical "trade deficits."

    Mexican, stop commenting on my posts. You are an idiot. I am sorry but you are unworthy of debate about this subject. You don't know anything and you seem to take pride it. Your response to this isn't even sensible. I can't fully express how much contempt I hold people who are as proudly ignorant as you in. There is nothing in this world that is lower than ignorant. And you are just ignorant. So ignorant, that your comments in this area are not even sensible enough to be considered wrong.

    You are just an embarrassing moron. I am really more embarrassed for you these days than I am annoyed.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: John,

    Mexican, stop commenting on my posts[.]


    You're delusional, John. Incredibly delusional.

    Leave aside the fact that you would entertain the notion that "trade deficits" are a real thing. That's an idea that only makes sense in a world of fixed values. No, really, I am calling you a Marxist while we're at it.

    What really takes the cake is that you take such an economically-incompetent buffoon as the p...y grabber seriously that makes me wonder if you are still here with us and not in orbit around planet Nowhere.

  • BYODB||


    While the p...y grabber is defending the virtue of the American Manufacturing Base® maybe he should also defend California from unfair trade pactices from Texas and their lower tax burdens....

    Oh, OMS, never change. You still can't grasp that internal borders aren't the same as external borders.

    Interstate commerce is regulated by the United States Federal Government. If there are 'unfair trade practices' between Texas and California it's because the USG has mandated it.

  • MWG||

    BYODB, from my understanding from reading people like Friedman and following current economist like Don Beudraux (too lazy to look up the spelling of his last name) from an economics perspective, there is no difference. OTOH, if one side of an arbitrary line wants to make things more difficult for their citizens through different regulations and tax schemes, that's their problem (though I'm for removing pretty much all barriers to trade).

    IOW, if someone wants to throw rocks in their harbor, why should I do the same?

  • BYODB||

    From an economic perspective there probably isn't a difference, or at least not a meaningful one, but politically there is a huge difference. Or at least that is true in theory.

    Interstate commerce is controlled more or less by the whims of the FedGov, whereas international trade involves both the FedGov and foreign governments with conflicting interests.

    I suppose a State might be able to sue the FedGov over matters of domestic interstate commerce, or maybe try for a Constitutional Convention, but that doesn't seem very comparable to international trade to me.

  • MWG||

    If Trump et al are right and trade is a zero-sum game and China is kicking our ass and therefore we need protections to counteract that... then taken to it's logical conclusion... it would be ideal for states to erect barriers and compete in the zero-sum game. Better yet... it would be ideal for cities and even neighborhoods to do such, no?

  • BYODB||


    If Trump et al are right and trade is a zero-sum game...

    Oh, we know he's wrong on that point at the very least. So was Sanders, and both of them had more or less the same opinions in this area. It's probably the issue I disagree with Trump most on, if I had to pick one.

  • vek||

    I hate the simplistic way a lot of libertarians think of trade. If you want to argue it as a moral right to trade, fine. But on pragmatic/mathematical grounds there are issues to be discussed.

    It's not zero sum... But the math can be done whichs shows winners and losers in some situations. Traditional free trade theory leaves out tons of real world factors the effect things nowadays. Fiat currency, unemployed people (the idea anyone would not be employed is completely left out of the classic argument!), minimum wages, welfare, and whether it is good to have foreign nationals owning extensive assets in your country to finance the deficit.

    All these things can be analyzed, and IMO in the real world OVERALL winners and losers can emerge. Both sides get some things they want out of the deal, but so does a crack head buying from his dealer, doesn't mean it's a great deal to an objective observer.

  • Jerryskids||

    What it says is that we are financing the trade deficit by borrowing money and selling off our assets. Those bonds will someday have to be paid back. The private investment is not a problem. It is hardly clear that selling off our assets to foreign firms to pay for our consumption of consumer goods is in any way sustainable over the long term or in any way conducive to prosperity.

    Bernie would be so proud of the way you refer to "we" and "our" and hint that we need Wise Men in government to prevent us retards from doing stupid shit.

  • vek||

    You don't have to be a commie to recognize fiscally imprudent behavior! Constantly taking out home equity loans to finance consumption as a person is much the same as us selling off our assets collectively to finance consumption... Sooner or later you run out of equity to sell and the bank owns your house. This is effectively how we're paying for our consumption now.

    Spending all your money on shiny shit is super fun while you're doing it... But deferring consumption and investing is what makes a person, or a nation, wealthy in the long haul.

    This is obvious shit. How do people not get it?

  • Deven||

    So basically Trump wants to end uncompetitive trade advantages, thereby actually increasing real free trade, but some people might take it the wrong way?

    So, libertarians should defend crony-capitalism, corruption, unfair trade practices, etc? One might think that those who benefit from such practices (*cough Kochs*) are trying to co-opt libertarianism, or at the least are using our "thought leaders" as useful idiots.

  • John||

    Then there is this

    Lo and behold, China is hemorrhaging capital at a record speed, and some of that Chinese money is coming to America. China, for all of its growing economic might, is still a country with dodgy property rights and an underdeveloped rule of law.

    That is true but has nothing to do with protectionism. You could be very protectionist and have all or none of those things. Reason and Cato's dishonesty and shabby work on trade have gone past the point of embarrassing.

  • BYODB||

    It's one of the few area's where 'more free' appears to track upwards with the page count of the related laws. Everyone knows that free trade requires 1,500 pages of regulations, right?

    /sarc

    That's way too simplistic of a picture, I'll admit, and something can be 'managed trade' while also being 'more free than it was trade'. Personally, it seems that true free trade is an ideal rather than an actual thing so perhaps managed trade is as good as it gets?

  • John||

    Managed trade is just another way of saying protectionism. Having 1500 pages of regulations that decide which industries get protected and how and who wins and who loses is not "free trade". But since a lot of important people benefit from these deals and the people harmed are generally people who don't count, it gets called free trade and anyone who objects called an obstructionist and nativist.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: John,

    Having 1500 pages of regulations that decide which industries get protected and how and who wins and who loses is not "free trade".


    You as well as most Trumpistas are operating on the delusion that when p...y grabber talks about "unfair trading practices" he is really and truly taking about 'managed trade' compared to free trade. It's the same sort of delusion Paleo-libertarians were living in when they believed the p....y grabber's supposed "anti-war" views which he never had.

  • ||

    Yes, dufus, free trade agreements have rules, rules which say things like "thou shalt not impose trade barriers". Rules which define what counts as a product manufactured in Canada or Mexico. Rules which provide processes for resolving disputes. None of those things are trade barriers. if we had some sort of overriding international law which mandated that the default state was no trade barriers, you might have a point, but we don't. If NAFTA went away, import tariffs would increase. These are objective facts which you refuse to acknowledge.

  • BYODB||


    Yes, dufus, free trade agreements have rules...

    *facepalm*

  • ||

    The US constitution is a list of rules, you fucking retard.

  • BYODB||


    Free trade, also called laissez-faire, a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports).

    Factually speaking, a document full of tariffs and subsidies is not free trade.

  • ||

    What in your meth addled brain makes you think that the rules contained in NAFTA or the TPP comprise tarffs and subsidies?

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Deven,

    ... libertarians should defend crony-capitalism, corruption, unfair trade practices, etc?


    Don't forget let little children die on the streets.

    So basically Trump wants to end uncompetitive trade advantages,


    Yeah, that's what he wants to do. Sure.

    Seems Trumpistas don't get the fact that those "uncompetitive trade advantages" come at the cost of their own citizens' purchasing power. The p....y grabber wants to do the same HERE to "level the playing field".

  • John||

    And Mexican is here to yell at the washing machines. Jesus Christ, you are one crazy, stupid bastard.

  • Deven||

    The p....y grabber wants to do the same HERE to "level the playing field"

    I have yet to see anything more than Trump using the threat of such as a negotiating tactic. I stand by my statement, and also agree with John on your mental state.

  • ||

    So basically Trump wants to end uncompetitive trade advantages

    Again, it depends WHO you think is advantage by what. What is "unfair" to a US exporter, can be very, very fair to a US consumer.

    What Trump is doing is holding the interests of US consumers hostage to protect the interests of US producers.
    I.e. The interest of US citizens interested in buying Japanese cars to the interests of General Motors and it's workers and shareholders.

    If you understand how comparative advantage works though, it's actually better to just unilaterally drop all import barriers *even if* other countries don't, because the net efficiency of the system rises more than the disadvantages to individual firms in foreign countries markets. In other words, the benefits to consumers across the board almost always outweigh the disadvantages to individual firms that can't enter the foreign market.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: HazelMeade,

    What is "unfair" to a US exporter, can be very, very fair to a US consumer.


    Hazel, Trumpistas' jingoism doesn't extend as far as protecting the US consumer from the monopolistic practices of national manufacturers. Either you buy "American" or you're a traitor to your country. Or your race, or something.... I can't keep up with it.

  • Deven||

    @Old Mexican

    Jesus, just shut the fuck up.

  • Deven||

    If you understand how comparative advantage works though, it's actually better to just unilaterally drop all import barriers *even if* other countries don't

    Is it better than both countries dropping barriers? No, and not by a long shot. What would you prefer as the bargaining chip, war? Or do you think economic reason and logic work on communists, dictatorships, and others who are more interested in lining their own pockets than the wellbeing of their people?

  • vek||

    Ding ding ding! We had all the leverage in the world, largest consumer market on earth, and gave it away instead. Pure stupidity. We could have probably ended Chinese protectionism 20 years ago, but didn't, for no real reason. Now we're so dependant on our cheap stuff dealer, and our own manufacturing capacity so diminished, that it would be like kicking heroin to cut ourselves off and assert ourselves. And China knows it too.

    The level of stupidity in one sided barrier dropping borders on treasonous IMO.

  • vek||

    This simplistic view ignores too many real world things. I agree that absolute free trade improves the wealth/productivity of the world as a whole... But that absolutely does not mean it improves the net wealth of any particular player. Aka winners and losers both exist.

    I don't think our managed trade system has done 1st world countries well, especially those that bought in the hardest. The USA and UK have seen their manufacturing industries shrink far faster than nations like Germany and Japan, who didn't throw those industries under the bus.

    In theory our workers should have moved into better paying jobs, and we'd be better off... In reality they became baristas and burger flippers, or went on welfare, and our trade deficits exploded. Theory is theory, but how a theory functions in the real world is the real test. One way barrier dropping has been a disaster. We should have used our position to force open other markets before letting them in. Had we done this I think we would have been infinitely better off.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Unfortunately, Trump's speech was both economically illiterate and factually incorrect par for the course.

    FTFY

  • Mongo||

    Asiatic: "Mr. President, congratulations on your election."

    Trump: "Listen, Chinaman, if your wife were a hot piece of ass you'd have one too."

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "it's true that U.S. firms are subjected to intellectual property rights violations"

    This assumes that every nation has some moral/legal duty to accept U.S. definitions of intellectual property. They don't. Each nation is sovereign and is free to do as it pleases. As is well known, back in the day the U.S. refused to enforce international copyright laws. The writings of famous British authors like Charles Dickens and Sir Walter Scott were serialized here as soon as they came off the presses, and neither Charlie nor Willie saw a penny. As a practical matter, it's generally not in a nation's interest to get on the bad side of the U.S., but China is not going to bust a gut cracking down on "hot" DVDs of Disney's Snow White. Nor should they. It's been frequently suggested that Bill Gate's original "DOS" code was a rip-off of something known as "CPM". Steve Jobs liked to sigh about the good old days when he was a pirate. Then he got rich and lobbied to have piracy made illegal. Why can't the next Bill and Steve be living in China, or Indonesia, or Africa?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alan speaks truly. I used CP/M, then DOS, and the pattern is familiar. Dickens did indeed shriek at his stuff being hawked in Yankee bookstores. Other countries used to have their own laws, but God's Own Prohibitionists are the better folk who know (at gunpoint) what's good for the riff-raff. Unfortunately, this causes the riff-raff to wonder if plutonium technology might not provide the sort of incentive gringos need in order to be induced to mind their own beeswax. The whole idea of the Second Amendment is to make it harder for a monopolist to bully the populace.

  • vek||

    I own an IP basef business, and lemme tell you, IP is not something to just laugh off. Especially since an ever growing portion of the globes economy is IP in nature, especially in the 1st world.

    Just because we were shitty in respecting authors/inventors rights in the past doesn't make it okay to do. I don't think the entire world needs to be in total lock step on IP issues, but nations that have no respect for it are no better than those that steal physical goods. There needs to be basic respect for IP because it is valuable just like physical goods. That's why civilized societies respect IP and protect it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The relevant accounting formula here is: Savings - Investment = Exports – Imports.

    This is the latest Reason talking point that they love to trot out. Trade imbalances don't matter, because "investment".

    They buy the land. They buy the companies. We work for them. We pay rent to them.

    Tell me how the US becoming a company town of China is good for US citizens.

    Ownership is power. It matters who you give power over you. I don't wish to be a serf of the Chinese Politburo.

    Globalism seems much like Social Justice - a mental illness. It causes mental retardation. Being *owned* by Communists is not a good idea. Duh. But that doesn't restrain Reason in their idiot globalist propaganda.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Lo and behold, China is hemorrhaging capital at a record speed

    China is buying becoming the worlds Owner at record speed. How horrible for the Chinese!

  • Mark22||

    Exactly! And, mind you, I don't even worry so much about Chinese and European private investors; they are just profit maximizers, like their US counterparts,

    The real worry is about Chinese institutional and public investments, because those are primarily driven by politcal interests, not profit maximization.

  • vek||

    Very true, state run is the scariest... But even foreign individuals are less interested than locals in the welfare of their own nation. Even the greediest capitalist pig might feel bad for 30 seconds shutting down a factory or whatever in his home town, whereas a foreigner might actually delight in knowing he's screwing over a competing nation to his nation and shipping the jobs to his own people.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This was the first good speech I've seen the Republican Persuader make. He took his cue from FDR's 1933 speech on the Smoot-Hawley tariff. After copying the Liberal Party 1931 prohibition repeal plank had guaranteed the Dems two decades of political success, FDR crowed about European countries' reactions to the the Smoot Hawley tariff (primarily prohibitionist but also protective): "Forty of them set up, just as you and I would have done, their own tariff defenses against us." Reagan had an objectivist speechwriter, and it is looking like Trump found one of his own.

  • Mark22||

    Lo and behold, China is hemorrhaging capital at a record speed, and some of that Chinese money is coming to America.

    And lo and behold, whether intentional or not, all that Chinese capital that is coming to the US also buys massive amounts of political, economic, and social influence. And while I don't even worry that much about private Chinese investors, a lot of that political, economic, and social influence is controlled by the Chinese government and its political priorities.

    If the Chinese leadership were faced with a Chinese domestic revolt vs losing a substantial portion of their investment wealth in the US, which do you think they would choose to live with?

  • ||

    It's hardly a surprise that the negotiating position of a Democratic administration would lean towards adding more protectionism to the TPP - intellectual property rights being the primary example.
    What's surprising is that the negotiating position of the current, theoretically Republican administration is even more protectionist. Or it would be surprising to someone who expected trump to uphold values that Republicans claim to believe in. But what else can you really expect from a lifelong Democrat whose core constituency consists of blue collar labor?

    The hilarious part of the scene is really the delusional Trump supporting Republicans who are trying really hard to convince themselves that Trump's opposition to free trade agreements is really secretly pro-free-trade. That negotiating for more protectionism is actually some N-dimensional chess aimed at acheiving actual free trade, and not the protectionist bullshit that labor supporting Democrats have always supported.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, well I don't have much respect for Trump, or expect much from him... But he has talked about forcing other nations to drop restrictions on our exports... So that kind of is in fact supporting freer trade...

  • Bra Ket||

    What's with the John Madden picture they keep using?

  • Richard Stallman||

    "Intellectual property" is a term of confusion, a bogus concept. It refers to more than a handful of unrelated laws, so different from each other that trying to generalize about them always results in confusion and errors. Even if we look at just two of them, copyright law and patent law, they are different on every point.

    It's no wonder that the bully spreads confusion, but that doesn't mean you have to!

    See https://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "Free trade" is what the DemoGOP kleptocracy calls a revenue-only tariff, just as today those same advocates of coercion refer to anything less than a Berlin Wall with snipers as "open borders." Justin S. Morrill wrote the second Tariff of Abominations, the one that caused the Civil War. In an 1894 speech against the communist income tax, after Bryanist People's Partisans got 9% of the vote, he repeats the equivocation with a full explanation of its meaning. The speech itself is at http://tinyurl.com/yb7vtdnl

  • nohakhan||

    Cleaning company with her father
    Every lady suffers from the daily cleaning of her home, but she may not get the perfect cleanliness she wants. So the company is cleaning up to make sure my lady is the perfect solution to clean your house or villa without bothering you and with the desired cleanliness. The company Al Fursan Abha and Khamis Mushait have a team of workers on top Efficiency, and through our company you can get the floors of a bright and neat house and clean water tanks and walls are very clean while preserving the colors, and also the marble and marble all this and more found in the company cleaning her father.
    شركة تنظيف بأبها
    شركة تنظيف بخميس مشيط

  • nohakhan||

    Cleaning company with her father
    Every lady suffers from the daily cleaning of her home, but she may not get the perfect cleanliness she wants. So the company is cleaning up to make sure my lady is the perfect solution to clean your house or villa without bothering you and with the desired cleanliness. The company Al Fursan Abha and Khamis Mushait have a team of workers on top Efficiency, and through our company you can get the floors of a bright and neat house and clean water tanks and walls are very clean while preserving the colors, and also the marble and marble all this and more found in the company cleaning her father.
    شركة تنظيف فلل بأبها
    شركة تنظيف فلل بخميس مشيط

  • nohakhan||

    Cleaning company with her father
    Every lady suffers from the daily cleaning of her home, but she may not get the perfect cleanliness she wants. So the company is cleaning up to make sure my lady is the perfect solution to clean your house or villa without bothering you and with the desired cleanliness. The company Al Fursan Abha and Khamis Mushait have a team of workers on top Efficiency, and through our company you can get the floors of a bright and neat house and clean water tanks and walls are very clean while preserving the colors, and also the marble and marble all this and more found in the company cleaning her father.
    شركة تنظيف منازل بأبها
    شركة تنظيف شقق بخميس مشيط

  • nohakhan||

    But not everyone has the experience and knowledge to solve and master this problem
    The citizens need specialized workers in this field and experience of these works resort to a factor in this area at a high price and a great time but also does not solve the problem because unfortunately leaves and create gaps to drain client funds
    There is no trusted name to deal with as there are many companies in this field but dear customerشركة مكافحة حشرات بجازان
    شركة مكافحة حشرات بالطائف

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online