Mike Pence can’t believe Tim Kaine would insult Donald Trump by quoting him
This comment was posted to reddit on Oct 06, 2016 at 9:13 pm and was deleted within 4 hour(s) and 29 minutes.
Mike Pence can’t believe Tim Kaine would insult Donald Trump by quoting him
So he wants to start a trade war? Got it. Because that is the solution. independent economist say that trump's plan will increase the deficit, destabilize the economy, and reduce jobs.
And other economists beg to differ. I know Trump offers many policy ideas that progressive economists hate. But when it comes to his positions on trade, the same economists say he’s identified the right problems. And identifying the problem is a major step in determining the correct solution, much better than just pretending it does not exist or will just go away.
Robert Scott, senior economist and director of trade and manufacturing at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute - Trump has stumbled on to a very important issue. The general outline is taking action to boost industries, and therefore jobs, here at home. Key for Scott is tackling China’s currency manipulation and any other countries that may be artificially holding down the values of their currencies. If China’s policies keep the value of the yuan lower than where it would be without intervention, that makes it cheaper for the goods and services they price in that cheaper currency for other countries to buy. It acts like a subsidy to everything that China and other countries export to the U.S., acts like a tax on all U.S. exports to China and to every country where we compete with China in the world.
And tariffs could be the answer, if done a certain way. It’s reasonable to talk about imposing a tariff on these exports…in order to offset the effects of currency manipulation He pointed to just such an experience in the past: when President Nixon imposed a tariff on imports that lasted a few months and got countries he dealt with to agree to make changes in currency policies.
Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy - Action makes sense, because the promised benefits of past trade agreements haven’t come to pass. The country was supposed to be able to cheaply import goods from other countries and simply shift our attention — as well as American workers — at home to making higher-end goods to then sell back abroad. But what we actually see is very high unemployment. The workers in the industries where the country began importing goods from elsewhere weren’t able to simply jump to different, more in-demand sectors; instead they just lost their jobs. It’s hard to say we’re benefitting.
Baker agrees that tariffs, if done the right way, can force concessions from other countries. “If it results in changing policy, then there’d be a net gain” for the economy, he argued, when weighing the boost to jobs against extra costs that might trickle down to consumers. The problem is that it will all become a game of negotiation, and the U.S. has plenty of other priorities it’s trying to haggle with China over beyond its currency. “With China we can’t give them a laundry list and say, ‘Here’s what we want you to do,’” he said. “If we want them to raise the value of their currency, it’s pretty much got to be number one.”
The damage has been severe: one study found that the United States lost about 2 million jobs between 1999 and 2011 to trade competition with China. That amounts to about 10 percent of all manufacturing job losses during that period. Meanwhile, another study found that in areas hit hard by rising competition with China, employment and wages remained depressed for at least a decade.