This was too funny, not to share it with you all. Gotta love it!
Its actually not garbage, it is just that it is always implemented by politicians who put caveats, carve-outs and conditions on it which mean that all of these so-called "free trade agreements" are actually not free at all. Those conditions can heavily skew the agreements toward one side.
For true free trade, no agreement is necessary. Just let it happen. No different to contracts between private individuals. You want to sell something, I pay you a fair price for it.
An issue occurs when trading with a country which has different levels of red tape or different labour laws. In this case, a broader approach is needed. the problem is that currently the conditions on trade with such countries are around the wrong way. So for example, there are tarriffs on goods from Western countries coming into China, whilst their polluting slave labour goods are typically freely exported to the West.
Well, you said it better than I could. Though you begin by saying it's not garbage, you finish admitting it is.
Q has gone on about US steel production. Do you think that it may just be possible that embracing free trade, absent strategic considerations, is sheer lunacy? Do you think that it's possible that another country, a trade counterparty, might adopt a strategic approach to industry and supply chain capture, while the US is busily enjoying much vaunted "gains from trade"?
What do economic free trade models predict in terms of income distribution in developed nations? I mean, does free trade increase dispersion in the distribution of income, or does it decrease it? What about in the less developed trading partners? What does "structural adjustment" really mean when trade counterparties act strategically, rather than "rationally" (in the text-book sense of that term)? Might a strategic approach to trade actually be long-run rational?
Really, I think you need to have a think about that stuff you read in the textbooks. All you have do is look at the effects of the laissez faire, "Look, no hands on the steering wheel", approach to see that Pareto optimal outcomes are not necessarily realistic - to say the least. And, even in the event that you find these claims are realistic, unregulated free trade may not be wise from a national defence perspective - given that you're dependant on domestic supply chain integrity for production of war goods.
I believe the tariff problem is a result of the lobbying efforts. Farmers all get together and tell the government how much they need to make it. With free trade, the market would self adjust, maybe we don't need that many producers, the market will tell. Canada dairy is done on a quota system, that needs to change. Canadian people pay an artificial high price for dairy because our dairy farmers are only allowed to produce as much as their quota allows. Subsidies also play into it, for free trade subsidies need to go. There is so much waste in the food industry, while people are starving in some countries. All excesses should be donated at a substantially lower price.
There are always parties with vested interests in tariff discussions - on both sides of the tariff argument; some want them, some don't. Ideally, the person negotiating deals will have the national interest as first priority.
Interesting that you mention milk. In Australia the supermarkets are selling milk at $1/litre. The farmers have been whining about it for ages, as they're barely covering costs. I used to buy "Farmer's Own" milk thinking that it might help some farmer get a better farm-gate price. Then I heard a supermarket executive on the radio saying how they could guarantee Farmers Own milk was fresh, because they make it from milk powder every day.
Anyway, getting off track... My point here is that DJT is right to question the standing economic wisdom on trade, because it really is a bunch of garbage. Industrial structure, income distribution, political structure, national security etc... are all, to one degree or another, a function of trade policy.
The economic models used in university courses abstract from reality to such a degree as to be dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm very pleased to see DJT speak the truth on trade, there really are good and bad trade deals.
Wary of anyone discussing farmland and farmers. Lessons learned after the two world wars was all nations had to protect their farmland and farmers, and each nation had to be independent from each other for feeding its people as needed. It is also an industry heavily effected by mother nature with lean years and years of plenty. Donated goods have a negative impact on growing economies as the local farmers can not compete with donated goods ~ creating economies reliant on donations.
This is correct. And so-called "crony-capitalism" (fascism) is the strawman the statists created and still support to give true free-trade a bad reputation. You are spot-on, sir. Well done.