Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:Free trade isn't a two-way street, it's a one-way street. It doesn't matter what other countries do. It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

Disagree.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Free trade isn't a two-way street, it's a one-way street. It doesn't matter what other countries do. It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

Disagree.

You simply don't have a full understanding of economics related to foreign trade.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Free trade isn't a two-way street, it's a one-way street. It doesn't matter what other countries do. It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

Disagree.

You simply don't have a full understanding of economics related to foreign trade.

That would apply to both of us, Bob.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Free trade isn't a two-way street, it's a one-way street. It doesn't matter what other countries do. It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

Disagree.

bobevenson wrote:You simply don't have a full understanding of economics related to foreign trade.

Gary Childress wrote:That would apply to both of us, Bob.

bobevenson wrote:No, it doesn't apply to me, and it didn't apply to the late and great Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. But I'm interested in why you disagree. Could you elucidate?

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Free trade isn't a two-way street, it's a one-way street. It doesn't matter what other countries do. It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

Disagree.

bobevenson wrote:You simply don't have a full understanding of economics related to foreign trade.

Gary Childress wrote:That would apply to both of us, Bob.

bobevenson wrote:No, it doesn't apply to me, and it didn't apply to the late and great Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. But I'm interested in why you disagree. Could you elucidate?

I disagree with the truth of the statement:

It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do

I believe it is a false statement as it stands. I would amend it to say:

Sometimes it is in the best interest of some countries to scrap some foreign trade regulations depending upon what other countries do.

Then I think it would be pretty much a truism.

bobevenson wrote:No, I'm afraid that both Milton Friedman and I would agree you are quite wrong, that there is absolutely no reason for tariffs or trade restrictions of any kind, and that having them hurts the country imposing them.

Are you in favor of trading nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, then? What about to members of ISIS? If not, then it is not true that you believe:

It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations regardless of what other countries do.

If Milton Friedman said that exact same statement, then I would be questioning him as well.

bobevenson wrote:My friend, this thread is about tariffs and trade restrictions on legal goods, OK?

So do you say that the following statement is true?

It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations concerning legal goods regardless of what other countries do.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:My friend, this thread is about tariffs and trade restrictions on legal goods, OK?

So do you say that the following statement is true?

It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations concerning legal goods regardless of what other countries do.

Absolutely, and without qualification. To give you a concrete, hypothetical example, if China wanted to flood the U.S. market with products at prices below the cost of production, putting U.S. companies making these same products out of business, but refused to buy any American products at any price, we should collectively send them a thank-you card.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:My friend, this thread is about tariffs and trade restrictions on legal goods, OK?

So do you say that the following statement is true?

It's in the best interest of every country to scrap all foreign trade regulations concerning legal goods regardless of what other countries do.

Absolutely, and without qualification. To give you a concrete, hypothetical example, if China wanted to flood the U.S. market with products at prices below the cost of production, putting U.S. companies making these same products out of business, but refused to buy any American products at any price, we should collectively send them a thank-you card.

Interesting. I'm not sure all the people who lost their jobs when U.S. companies went out of business would agree. As education levels plummet as a result and we turn into a third world country that doesn't know how to produce anything, as scholars and academics flock to China for more pay, should we still send China a thank you card? Actually, thinking more about it maybe we should. Kissing up to China would then be in our best interest just as some third world countries may currently kiss up to our government out of fear. It almost sounds like treason to me, Bob, to embrace short term gain over long term health of our nation. But you are a divinely inspired prophet and therefore we ought to listen unconditionally to you I suppose. Maybe it's God's will to wreck our country. What do I know?

bobevenson wrote:Gary, there are people who would like to tax the sun for putting candle makers out of business.

If you say so, Confucius.