Ready to throw her under the bus?

[spqrzilla]

Zero understanding of basic economics of any kind.

[spqrzilla]

Consider the simplest model .... In this model there are two countries. In each country, consumers have a preference for variety but there is a tradeoff between variety and cost, consumers want variety but since there are economies of scale – a firm’s unit costs fall as it produces more – more variety means higher prices. Preferences for variety push in the direction of more variety, economies of scale push in the direction of less. So suppose that without trade country 1 produces varieties A,B,C and country two produces varieties X,Y,Z. In every other respect the countries are identical so there are no traditional comparative advantage reasons for trade.

Nevertheless, if trade is possible it is welfare enhancing. With trade the scale of production can increase which reduces costs and prices.

Welfare enhancing means that global trade is good for our country. Everyone's country.

[Rucker61]

Profit is not always in the best interest of the nation. It would provide more profit for Wallstreet if they could offshore all manufacturing to China. They have no care if it is in the best interests of the nation. What is good for business is not always good for the nation. That is your biggest assumption mistake. Should we allow all our arms manufactures to ship their manufacturing facilities to China? What do you think would happen if we had no more of them manufacturing here? There is a reason we protect them. That same reason should apply to all things not just weapons systems.

Now I think I have a good understanding of your basic premise. I never said that what is good for business is always good for the nation. But when you get to where you tell Capital where they can invest, limit how they make their profit for the optimal benefit of the country, then you better hope that you've closed the borders to emigration.

[nynco]

There is not telling any one where they can invest or not. It is just bringing back a national trade policy based on the best interests of the nation. Something that was in place from the founding of this nation till Reagan. This is nothing like communism like you are alluding to (emigration like people fleeing communism).

Sqr, I am not saying their will be no trade or that trade will end. There will be rules based on economic costs of manufacture that will dictate tariff levels. Those change based on many factors. This worked just fine for over 200 years.

[spqrzilla]

nynco, global trade increases everyone's welfare. Guess who got a Nobel prize for economics for working on the economic models that establish this? Every Democrats' idol Paul Krugman. Since then, he's written editorials that contradict the very work he got the Nobel prize for, without acknowledging it.

Its why I despise Krugman and laugh at you.

[nynco]

I am not saying global trade will end. It is not black and white. I am not calling for an end to trade or to close the border to all imports. I am calling for the same trading common sense that Alexander Hamilton put in place. A system that this nation lived under for over 200 years and we prospered. Only when we abandoned those principles did we start our downward trend. Did you ever even look at the link that I posted regarding Alexander Hamiltons 11 points on trade? If not then check it out and see if there is not something one of the founding fathers could help clear up for you.