4556
4557

OfficialPress Release: "Hillary Clinton: Outsourcer-in-Chief" (berniesanders.com)

Telarius1California が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]mattisnotfrench [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

These agreements don't promote free trade. They make it easier for companies to outsource by removing tariffs and protections that keep jobs in the US. So they benefit the companies, but not the workers who make things. Shareholders cash in, everybody else gets screwed.

These agreements, particularly the TPP, also weaken environmental and labor standards.

[–]chappaquiditch [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Tariffs are absolutely terrible economic and political policy. They pick winners and losers based on political favorites. They protect certain industries while leaving other very vulnerable to retaliation. If you can't compete in the free market you don't deserve to exist no matter how many jobs that may cost.

[–]hithazel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Tariffs are difficult to use properly in the same way that health and safety laws are difficult but consider the current case: Lack of tariffs and strict border controls in countries with no worker protections and no environmental regulation. The US passes laws around safety and health for workers and the best economic decision becomes for companies to leave and murder workers elsewhere. A country that supports worker's rights and environmental regulation but does not use any tariffs on countries that do not puts its citizens at an inherent economic disadvantage.

[–]ErnestMorrow [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Yeah but you just can't compete with the lower cost of manufacturing in recently industrialized countries compared to the US. Pay your workers $8.40 an hour or $.50 a day, it's not hard math when all you see is a number not the people you're taking jobs from. A higher standard of living costs money

[–]chappaquiditch [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yes it does. But the answer is not to protect jobs in uncompetitive industries. It's to allow innovation to take place and create new jobs.

[–]vialaboCalifornia [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The biggest issue is that the safety net isn't large enough to smooth the transition.

[–]alive20017Japan [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

"free market"

[–]chappaquiditch [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

If we went with a trade protectionist policy and started seeing the reinstitution of tarrifs, you would see so much crony capitalism. They're many legit criticisms of our current economic system. Those saying they can fix it by instituting tarrifs are either being disingenuous or dumb.

[–]alive20017Japan [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

markets are only free with tons of regulations

[–]chappaquiditch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes and no. Certain regulations like anti trust rules are crucial to a free market. I'd argue certain licensing, tax and compliance rules actually make the market less free and serve to restrict competition.

[–]Stop_Wasting_Time [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

wat

[–]alive20017Japan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

we don't have crony capitalism already? lol

[–]chappaquiditch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

My point was crony capitalism can be and often is made worse by the addition of regulation to a market. Tariffs would be no exception.

[–]Potatoes-O-Brien [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The whole point of free trade is to remove protectionist barriers like tariffs. That's what fee trade is. The United States as the hegemon controls the global economic order. We benefit overall from free trade. If we went back to protectionism that would cause backlash from the WTO and other countries would throw tariffs on our exports. Everybody would be trying to gain at the expense of others and in the long run would make the global economy more vulnerable to another depression.

[–]Stop_Wasting_Time [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

don't promote free trade. by removing tariffs and protections that keep jobs in the US

Which is it?

Imma drop some knowledge on ya

These shills must all be bought off by the Koch brothers right?

[–]OrphanRapist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have also disagreed with Bernie in regards to free trade vs protectionism, but I feel like I've only gotten one side of the argument. I'd honestly appreciate another perspective.

From what I understand protectionism helps the Americans that directly benefit from manufacturing jobs, but hurts the rest of the economy. Increased costs means lower domestic purchasing power, retaliatory tariffs by our trade partners, and job cutting by industries that are impacted by the increased cost.

A particular case study I remember from school was the US Steel Tariffs done by Bush in 2002. The tariffs saved US steel jobs, but it cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs (far more than those saved) in other industries that were impacted by the increased steel cost. (Source: http://tradepartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2002jobstudy.pdf).

I also recall this graph from a basic economics class that demonstrates the societal loss as a result of a tariff: (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4822370246_1921331907.jpg)

Basically my understanding is protectionism benefits the small group that works in manufacturing and hurts the rest of the economy.

Again, I've only been exposed to one side of the argument and I'd really appreciate some new perspective (with sources if it isn't too much trouble).