Simple Question. Will you vote for Trump?

[farmerbyron]

I am not and the way the economy has been going it is obvious to me that free trade is a bad policy.
I have no idea how a Chinese communist that uses technology invented in the US with tax payer money has the equal right to do business in this country and compete in equal terms with Americans who have fought, worked, and paid taxes to build this country.
We have sent so much technology and industrial capability to China that the former arsenal of Democracy will be in trouble when our next enemy, the Chinese commies, continue pushing to expand their geopolitical sphere of influence displacing ours.

Interesting.....

http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-exports/2001/


In 2014, exports from the United States amounted to US$1.62 trillion, up 26.7% since 2010. America’s top 10 exports accounted for 68.4% of the overall value of its global shipments.
Based on statistics from the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook Database, US total Gross Domestic Product amounted to $17.42 trillion in 2014.
Therefore, exports accounted for about 9.3% of total American economic output.
Given United States’s population of 321.4 million people, its total $1.62 trillion in 2014 exports translates to roughly $5,040 for every resident in that country.
United States’s unemployment rate was 6.2% in 2014.

The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in American global shipments during 2014. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from the United States.
1. Machines, engines, pumps: US$219.8 billion (13.6% of total exports)
2. Electronic equipment: $172.4 billion (10.6%)
3. Oil: $155.6 billion (9.6%)
4. Vehicles: $136 billion (8.4%)
5. Aircraft, spacecraft: $125.2 billion (7.7%)
6. Medical, technical equipment: $85 billion (5.2%)
7. Gems, precious metals, coins: $64.1 billion (4%)
8. Plastics: $63 billion (3.9%)
9. Pharmaceuticals: $44 billion (2.7%)
10. Organic chemicals: $42.3 billion (2.6%)
Driven by processed oils, petroleum gases and to a lesser degree by crude oil, oil was the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up in value by 90.5% for the 5-year period starting in 2010.
In second place for improving export sales was aircraft and spacecraft which rose 57.2% led by international sales of large aircraft weighing more than 15,000 kilogram, smaller helicopters weighing 2,000 kilograms and under, as well as communications satellites .
American vehicle exports posted the third-fastest gain in value at 37.1%, galvanized by robust revenue gleaned for deliveries of medium-size to larger cars.
The slowest-growing category among the top 10 US exports was organic chemicals which appreciated by a modest 3.5%.








Protectionist policies result in trade wars. This means other countries place counter tariffs on your goods. There is not enough consumption in the US economy alone to keep the economy chugging. Protectionism means more expensive goods to the US consumer and a smaller market from which to choose.

 

[Nraman]

So you're cool with bypassing congress and usurping the constitution so long as it suits you.

Really? When did I say that?

 

[Nraman]

Interesting.....

http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-exports/2001/


In 2014, exports from the United States amounted to US$1.62 trillion, up 26.7% since 2010. America’s top 10 exports accounted for 68.4% of the overall value of its global shipments.
Based on statistics from the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook Database, US total Gross Domestic Product amounted to $17.42 trillion in 2014.
Therefore, exports accounted for about 9.3% of total American economic output.
Given United States’s population of 321.4 million people, its total $1.62 trillion in 2014 exports translates to roughly $5,040 for every resident in that country.
United States’s unemployment rate was 6.2% in 2014.

The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in American global shipments during 2014. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from the United States.
1. Machines, engines, pumps: US$219.8 billion (13.6% of total exports)
2. Electronic equipment: $172.4 billion (10.6%)
3. Oil: $155.6 billion (9.6%)
4. Vehicles: $136 billion (8.4%)
5. Aircraft, spacecraft: $125.2 billion (7.7%)
6. Medical, technical equipment: $85 billion (5.2%)
7. Gems, precious metals, coins: $64.1 billion (4%)
8. Plastics: $63 billion (3.9%)
9. Pharmaceuticals: $44 billion (2.7%)
10. Organic chemicals: $42.3 billion (2.6%)
Driven by processed oils, petroleum gases and to a lesser degree by crude oil, oil was the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up in value by 90.5% for the 5-year period starting in 2010.
In second place for improving export sales was aircraft and spacecraft which rose 57.2% led by international sales of large aircraft weighing more than 15,000 kilogram, smaller helicopters weighing 2,000 kilograms and under, as well as communications satellites .
American vehicle exports posted the third-fastest gain in value at 37.1%, galvanized by robust revenue gleaned for deliveries of medium-size to larger cars.
The slowest-growing category among the top 10 US exports was organic chemicals which appreciated by a modest 3.5%.

Great news!
I thought we had a huge trade deficit.

I wonder how you would feel if the US government stopped subsidizing farm products and the Chinese started sending us farm products at 1/3 the domestic price.

 

[farmerbyron]

Really? When did I say that?

When you said this

Our choice is to either continue the current course, or try something new.
Doing the same old thing and expecting change is insane.

In reply to this

What's he going to do? Issue an Executive Order removing us from NAFTA? That's going to have to go through congress. Trump seemingly has no clue how our govt actually works.

The "try something new" implies the current course of going through congress is not working thus justifying EO as a means to go around congress.

Great news!
I thought we had a huge trade deficit.

I wonder how you would feel if the US government stopped subsidizing farm products and the Chinese started sending us farm products at 1/3 the domestic price.

The only thing the federal govt subsidizes is crop insurance. And China, with a billion plus people are in the business of importing food, not exporting it. The US is really damned efficient at growing abundant supplies of food for dirt cheap.

 

[Nraman]

When you said this



In reply to this



The "try something new" implies the current course of going through congress is not working thus justifying EO as a means to go around congress.





The only thing the federal govt subsidizes is crop insurance. And China, with a billion plus people are in the business of importing food, not exporting it. The US is really damned efficient at growing abundant supplies of food for dirt cheap.

The try something new indeed doesn't imply the non existent current course through Congress, the Republican and Democratic establishments including the current and previous Presidents don't want it.
One alternative is to have a President that makes better trading agreements his priority and works through Congress to change the deals. Another would be to directly negotiate with China and NAFTA nations for better terms.
Last I checked, the President makes the international deals and Congress approves and the President has a lot of power if he is willing to use it to push the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill

I think there is a lot more than insurance in the farm bill. I don't see any reason why the government should have any involvement at all with private enterprise.

 

[Cowman]

It would be all good if Congress wasn't such whore dog *****'s.

 

[Nraman]

It would be all good if Congress wasn't such whore dog *****'s.

I believe that with proper leadership and some balls to expose their doings, they could remember as hard as it may be, to put the national interests ahead or at least at the same level as their own.
OK, I'll be happy if they consider the national interests at all.

 

[bluedog46]

So you're cool with bypassing congress and usurping the constitution so long as it suits you. Not so different than then current administration after all.

I don't think you could thumb your nose at congress and pander more than the current admin.

 

[dlbleak]

um...no

 

[farmerbyron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_farm_bill

I think there is a lot more than insurance in the farm bill. I don't see any reason why the government should have any involvement at all with private enterprise.

In a perfect world, I'm with you. However, our govt has decided that there is a vested govt interest in cheap food. Fed people are happy people and hungry folks are pretty pissy. As such, subsidized crop insurance is the vehicle to keep us farmers in business through natural disasters. They are quite frequent and without subsidies, crop insurance would not exist. This would mean more of us go out of business and less food being produced and food costs dramatically higher than they are.

Might also want to analyze where the bulk of the spending in the 2014 farm bill takes place. Subsidies to farmers amount to a fart in a whirlwind compared to food stamps and even more so when you consider the entirety of federal spending.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Act_of_2014#Provisions_of_the_bill

According to Brad Plumer at The Washington Post, the spending in the bill (FY 2014-2023) breaks down in the following manner:

Food stamps and nutrition
$756 billion
Crop insurance
$89.8 billion
Conservation
$56 billion
Commodity programs
$44.4 billion
Everything else
$8.2 billion
In total, this spending represents about 2.1% of projected federal spending over that time period.



Now that we are way off topic lets circle back around to Trump and trade agreements. The president can call for revising trade agreements all he wants but ultimately if the other countries are happy with the current agreements, they aren't changing. Now any future agreements can certainly try be negotiated towards protectionism. However, other countries will not just sit idly by and get the shaft of their goods being taxed while US goods come to them tariff free. Also, if the US does not negotiate an attractive enough deal, there is a whole world of other countries that are willing to play ball. Then before you know it, US goods will face tariffs from numerous countries in a trade partnership and not just the one country you are negotiating with.