Lessons on trade

I don't know much about Oliver as well, though I would like to hear what you mean by "leaps in trade we haven't seen it decades". I think a strong counter argument can be made to that statement.

What would a "leap in trade" constitute? More of it would be the best answer, I think, but that's certainly not what he's referring to.
 
There was a little known bilateral trade agreement worked out with South Korea earlier in the year that cuts their steel exports to the US by 30% with a newly imposed annual quota, in addition to further opening their automotive and pharmaceutical markets. America had to give up, well, virtually nothing in return aside from an exemption on tariffs. The reason everyone has gotten hit with them is mostly due to China's habit of using other countries as a conduit for their steel dumping through transshipments and relabeling.

Be patient and let Lighthizer do his thing.

We gave up cheaper steel for nothing. Tariffs only make sense to protect industries vital to national security. Anything else, is just a waste of wealth and resources. If a country doesn't let you sell your goods freely in their country, their citizens are paying for the privledge to not buy your goods.
 
I hope not, but maybe our more partisan US posters on here would be more inclined to support (and have faith in) their country on this if they knew it isn't Trump but Lighthizer doing trade negotiations, that it isn't Trump but CFIUS blocking China from buying up our critical tech.

That official "trade war" thread is utterly pathetic, you and a couple of Pinoy posters show more patriotism for America than this lot on here and people always @HomerThompson but that's total nonsense. He quietly strongly approves. It ain't Trump, you aren't supporting Trump FFS and we'll soon be back on good terms with our EU and NAFTA allies.

Maybe, maybe not.

Im not really patriotic about America, but i recognize that given the clout and power projection of said country, its in the best interests of people who value freedoom (economic and social) to ensure that nations who want to be included in the global economy to do so under fair terms.

And China hasnt been playing fair for a long time.
 
He dishonestly takes advantage of peoples ignorance of how complicated and nuanced a lot of subjects are. He smugly suggests they are simple and easy.

I simply cannot handle the irony of this post. It's too much for me that someone would take this stance in being critical of Oliver's (comparatively nuanced, and certainly uncontroversial, take) while supporting Donald Trump's laughably reductive view of trade as a zero sum win/loss pissing match that has no concern whatsoever for the trade partners or the goods being traded.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top