Archive for China

Trump and Trade

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , on April 5, 2018 by cavalier973

This article discusses the problems with Trump’s attempt to spark a “trade war” with China (the term “trade war” is nonsensical; it is like saying “pedestrian motorist”). The author echoes a position I have, which is that Trump is undermining the foundation for economic success he is building by his deregulation efforts and the Tax Cut enacted last December.

Perhaps he is only playing the part of the dealmaker, where he takes a tougher stance initially, in order to get the party of the second part to acquiesce to something, but it is unnecessary for government to wheel’n’deal when it comes to trade, because the private entities that engage in trade are already doing the deals.

There should be no NAFTA. There should be no CAFTA, or GATT or TPP. There should be no government, negotiated trade treaties at all. Government just needs to remove itself from the trade arena altogether, and allow the interested parties do what they do.

Advertisements

So; what are the Chinese up to?

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , , , on March 27, 2018 by cavalier973

China is quietly establishing the Indian Ocean as its primary trade area.

An excerpt:

“The move away from depending on cheap exports to America and elsewhere is likely to gain momentum, reducing the relative importance of Trump’s tariffs. Instead, China is creating what amounts to a large free trade area throughout Asia with her partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This is the opportunity offered to other foreign suppliers to the region, such as the UK, assuming she has the gumption to become involved after Brexit.”

 

Stuff Going On — 05/03/2017

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 3, 2017 by cavalier973

♠ The Chinese embassy in North Korea tells its citizens to get out of the country. The previous sentence is rather vague, what? Chinese citizens currently staying in North Korea are urged by the Chinese embassy to leave North Korea and head home to China. Better?

♣ I had jury duty yesterday, and made it to Round II, but did not ultimately get selected. The case was The State of Texas versus Aaron Lucas. The jury selection process was interesting. I had been called to jury duty one other time, and didn’t make it to the second round, probably because the person being charged worked for UPS, and I worked for FedEx at the time. But I digress. In Round II, the prosecution conducted a presentation, then the defense did a presentation; both presentations involved question-and-answer sessions.

The prosecution just wanted to make sure that the prospective jurors were emotionally capable of sitting in on testimony and evidence that involved child molestation and kidnapping. The defense wanted to make certain that the prospective jurors understood that they were only deciding the facts of this particular case, and that they would be willing to find the defendant “Not Guilty” on the specific charges he was facing, even if it was discovered that he had committed other criminal acts. This confused people.

I sort of understood what the defense was trying to say: that the Law mandates the prosecution follow certain rules, and violation of those rules would mean the prosecution lost its case. So, for example, the defense attorney said that his client was charged with molesting a child in a particular way, and that if the prosecution had determined that the child was, indeed, molested, but not in the way that the prosecution charged, then the jury would need to find his client “Not Guilty”. Several people were unwilling to follow this line of reasoning. “If he molested a child, then he is guilty, regardless of how he did it.” Makes sense.

On the other hand, if he had molested the child in another way, then the prosecution should have charged him with that. What this says is that the state did not have enough evidence to prove that Mr. Lucas had molested a child in any way other than the method that they charge him with. Another thought I had was that, since Mr. Lucas (presumably) did not take a plea bargain, then he must be reasonably confident he can win this case.

On the other hand, he tried to blame his conviction in a Colorado case on his “evil twin brother”, so he may not be exactly right in the head.

Transcript of Rush Limbaugh speaking with Vice President Mike Pence.

The Trouble with Trump’s Tax Cut. Quote: “The White House trumpets its proposal to almost double the standard deduction, from a maximum of $12,600 to $24,000. This would benefit many middle-income taxpayers and simplify the code by encouraging more people not to take itemized deductions.

But some of these families actually would face higher taxes if, as with earlier Trump and Republican plans, it also eliminates the personal exemption, currently $4,050 per person. It’s difficult to be precise since the plan lacks specifics on tax brackets where various rates would kick in.

Think of a middle-class couple with three kids. With the personal exemption gone, they’d have to add $20,250 to their taxable income. That’s nearly double the new “benefit” they’d get from the increase in their standard deduction of $11,400.”

Stuff Going On — 04/25/2017

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 25, 2017 by cavalier973

Russia has supplanted Saudi Arabia as the third-largest spender on military. It spends just under $70 billion, compared to 2nd-place China’s $215 billion and the U.S.A.’s $611 billion.

♣ A court case that has a good chance of making it to the SCOTUS may, possibly, eliminate all Federal Gun Control laws.

Belleview, FL is feeling a little rebellious.

♦ Trump is playing 3D Monopoly, by targeting U.S. trading partner Canada, instead of Mexico. Robert Wenzel talks about the benefits that accrue to U.S. citizens from foreign government subsidies.

“Obama on Fair Trade”

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , on March 21, 2012 by cavalier973

http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/03/obama-on-fair-trade/

“Here we see the view, commonly held by the media and non-economists in our universities, that international trade is a competition, analogous to sports or military competition (sometimes, ‘trade competition’ is compared to the Cold War). If the playing field is not level, then the trade is not fair. Economists, and this view is not limited to Austrians, understand that international trade is the fruit of cooperation, not competition. America and China are not trade competitors. Paul Krugman thoroughly demolishes this fallacy in ‘The Illusion of Conflict in International Trade’ (reprinted in Krugman’s Pop Internationalism). Krugman explains that in international trade ‘it is the illusion of economic conflict, which bears virtually no resemblance to the reality, that poses the real threat.'”

There can be no such thing as a “trade war”, because trade is a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services between individuals.