Donald Trump, Enemy Of Free Markets

Apr 2012
57,332
42,148
Englewood,Ohio
#31
I've viewed the thread a couple times and agree it's fascinating. I've remarked repeatedly on how interesting it was that Trump stole some cliff notes and talking points from labor unions and clobbered Hillary over the head with them, particularly on trade. He also brought in Steven Bannon, eccentric economic nationalist, to steer his campaign. These were signs he was no typical free-market champion, by any stretch of the imagination. Turns out free markets aren't interesting to most people one way or another. Conservatives just reference it as a reason to opposite government and Democrats. Most don't actually care about it beyond that.

And I think a lot of people out there view the panicking and freaking out by the political establishment and power elite as little more than a sign that Trump must be doing good work somehow or another.
Yes, and not attending the International Trade meeting was a smart move because the UAE, China and India are making trade agreements worth billions while the US sits on their hands watching Trump spew his hate and ignorance of any semblance of how the world works.

Even China is getting rid of coal!

Why are Republicans so stuck in the 1950’s?
 
Likes: Babba
Nov 2015
5,078
1,579
UK
#32
Donald Trump is waging war on free markets in the energy sector. His brilliant plan, a perfect example of the kind of hare-brained centralized economic planning we used to see right out of the Kremlin in the 'glory' days of the sickly Soviet economy, is to force American consumers to pay higher energy prices, in order to subsidize and forcibly keep open, failing coal-fired power plants that would otherwise be going out of business:

Trump administration taking 'immediate steps' to try to stop closure of coal, nuclear power plants

Here is an interesting quote: "Unprecedented government intervention in the energy markets to support high-cost generation will hurt consumers by taking more money out of their pockets rather than letting them keep more of what they earn," said Todd Snitchler of the American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group of the oil and gas industry. [So it is not just the renewable energy industry that finds this kind of support for the failing coal industry to be stupid policy!]

Forcing American taxpayers to bailout uneconomical power plants is an assault on free market principles, if there ever was one!

The Wall Street Journal had a few more details in the Saturday edition. Malcolm Woolf oversees policy at Advanced Energy Economy, a trade group representing business consumers. He said: "The Administration's plan to federalize the electric power system is an exercise in crony capitalism taken solely for the benefit of a bankrupt power-plant owner and its coal supplier." Mr. Trump received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from coal company executives.


And, of course, with his even more consequential tariff policies, Donald Trump is on an even larger scale, an enemy of economic freedom more generally.
Your argument is overlooking a key issue, free markets do not exist in any nation. To say Trump or anyone is an enemy of free markets is laughable. There's the concept of free markets but only in Utopia, pretty much the same place where one will find Socialism working.

The banks didn't uphold the principle of keeping the government out of the market, they went cap in hand in 2008 to be bailed out with tax payers money. I'll just go and make a coffee and wait while you'll explain this meaningless thread.
 
Feb 2011
15,777
10,199
The formerly great golden state
#33
Yes, and not attending the International Trade meeting was a smart move because the UAE, China and India are making trade agreements worth billions while the US sits on their hands watching Trump spew his hate and ignorance of any semblance of how the world works.

Even China is getting rid of coal!

Why are Republicans so stuck in the 1950’s?
Because Trump took over the party and is leading it backward. Now, if it stopped in the '50s, a time of economic growth and high taxes on the wealthy, a time when we were able to build the interstate highway system and help rebuild Europe while paying down the war debt, that might be OK if only the institutional racism of that era were not a part of it. No, he seems determined for the party to go all the way back to the 1930s, quite a different era in our history.
 
Mar 2012
53,716
35,562
New Hampshire
#34
I've viewed the thread a couple times and agree it's fascinating. I've remarked repeatedly on how interesting it was that Trump stole some cliff notes and talking points from labor unions and clobbered Hillary over the head with them, particularly on trade. He also brought in Steven Bannon, eccentric economic nationalist, to steer his campaign. These were signs he was no typical free-market champion, by any stretch of the imagination. Turns out free markets aren't interesting to most people one way or another. Conservatives just reference it as a reason to opposite government and Democrats. Most don't actually care about it beyond that.

And I think a lot of people out there view the panicking and freaking out by the political establishment and power elite as little more than a sign that Trump must be doing good work somehow or another.
I think thats a huge part of the problem. Republicans for the most part, never met a trade deal they didnt like. Democrats, particularly rust belt ones, have used it for decades to bash them. "Country club republicans etc." Now here comes Donald Trump, faux conservative, who actually sounds more like Bernie Sanders than a republican. Those "No TPP" wearing Sanders supporters at the 2016 DNC convention easily could have been Trump supporters. They are for the most part, all isolationist, tariff loving, anti trade people.
 
Feb 2011
16,399
5,710
Boise, ID
#36
I think thats a huge part of the problem. Republicans for the most part, never met a trade deal they didnt like. Democrats, particularly rust belt ones, have used it for decades to bash them. "Country club republicans etc." Now here comes Donald Trump, faux conservative, who actually sounds more like Bernie Sanders than a republican. Those "No TPP" wearing Sanders supporters at the 2016 DNC convention easily could have been Trump supporters. They are for the most part, all isolationist, tariff loving, anti trade people.
Maybe, or at least, anyone for whom international trade is one of their primary hot button issue was going to have a really, really hard time rationalizing a vote for Clinton in 2016.

We saw union leaders grappling with this, trying to salvage some sort of reason to convince their members to cast votes for Clinton while Trump was pandering to them. I think the union leaders knew that even a very pro-free trade Democrat would be better for their interests than an anti-free trade wild card like Donald Trump.
 
Likes: bajisima
Jan 2016
47,991
43,940
Colorado
#38
Your argument is overlooking a key issue, free markets do not exist in any nation. To say Trump or anyone is an enemy of free markets is laughable. There's the concept of free markets but only in Utopia, pretty much the same place where one will find Socialism working.

The banks didn't uphold the principle of keeping the government out of the market, they went cap in hand in 2008 to be bailed out with tax payers money. I'll just go and make a coffee and wait while you'll explain this meaningless thread.
Your second paragraph is quite correct, which is exactly WHY those bank bailouts were so controversial. Many Americans would have been in favor of simply letting those big banks fail. Yet they WERE "too big to fail". These were the Big Five investment banks on Wall Street: they stood at the very nexus, the nerve center, of the entire world economy. Had they all gone under, without being absorbed into other institutions, the entire world economy would have most certainly been plunged into the Second Great Depression----or, quite possibly, something even worse. As it was, only Lehman Brothers was allowed to simply fail, and even that triggered the most severe financial/banking/credit crisis since 1929-1933. The people who were vehemently opposed to TARP (the Troubled Assets Relief Program) in late 2008, were essentially saying we should punish a person who had started a fire by smoking in bed, by letting the fire spread to the whole city he lived in. What should worry us is that today, those big financial institutions are even bigger than they were back in 2008. We have NOT solved the problem of 'too big to fail'. Having said that, our financial institutions are in much HEALTHIER condition today than they were back then!

No nation has totally free markets, that is true. Nor would I even want that! I am NOT an advocate of pure laissez faire economics! But markets are a very powerful error-correcting mechanism. Market-based economies are much less susceptible to shortages or surpluses, which can be viewed as errors of economic coordination. [The centrally planned Soviet economy of the 1970s and 1980s was PLAGUED by horrific shortages and surpluses, causing massive discontent among the population, especially when they became aware of how much better things were in the West.]

Free markets exist whenever prices are allowed to adjust in response to changes in supply and demand. America DOES have free markets to a VASTLY greater extent than, say, Venezuela today. DO let me know if you wish to dispute that. But even Venezuela has more in the way of markets operating than does North Korea, the last bastion of Stalinist-style centralized planning on a state-level scale-----and it's an economic basket-case.
 
Nov 2015
5,078
1,579
UK
#39
Your second paragraph is quite correct, which is exactly WHY those bank bailouts were so controversial. Many Americans would have been in favor of simply letting those big banks fail. Yet they WERE "too big to fail". These were the Big Five investment banks on Wall Street: they stood at the very nexus, the nerve center, of the entire world economy. Had they all gone under, without being absorbed into other institutions, the entire world economy would have most certainly been plunged into the Second Great Depression----or, quite possibly, something even worse. As it was, only Lehman Brothers was allowed to simply fail, and even that triggered the most severe financial/banking/credit crisis since 1929-1933. The people who were vehemently opposed to TARP (the Troubled Assets Relief Program) in late 2008, were essentially saying we should punish a person who had started a fire by smoking in bed, by letting the fire spread to the whole city he lived in. What should worry us is that today, those big financial institutions are even bigger than they were back in 2008. We have NOT solved the problem of 'too big to fail'. Having said that, our financial institutions are in much HEALTHIER condition today than they were back then!

No nation has totally free markets, that is true. Nor would I even want that! I am NOT an advocate of pure laissez faire economics! But markets are a very powerful error-correcting mechanism. Market-based economies are much less susceptible to shortages or surpluses, which can be viewed as errors of economic coordination. [The centrally planned Soviet economy of the 1970s and 1980s was PLAGUED by horrific shortages and surpluses, causing massive discontent among the population, especially when they became aware of how much better things were in the West.]

Free markets exist whenever prices are allowed to adjust in response to changes in supply and demand. America DOES have free markets to a VASTLY greater extent than, say, Venezuela today. DO let me know if you wish to dispute that. But even Venezuela has more in the way of markets operating than does North Korea, the last bastion of Stalinist-style centralized planning on a state-level scale-----and it's an economic basket-case.
Markets run by themselves but sometimes they need steered and tweaked with government fiscal and monetary policies. To that extent, I would call that a free market, as free as you can get.

The problem starts when the UK and the US governments go beyond their remit and they legislate in areas where they should keep out of.

I would say most presidents overstep the mark with the market, I would further add that you feel Trump certainly does.

The difference between you guys and the UK, you have the 2nd amendment. Our government know they would all be assassinated if they allowed the types of guns you guys have.
 
Feb 2011
15,777
10,199
The formerly great golden state
#40
Your second paragraph is quite correct, which is exactly WHY those bank bailouts were so controversial. Many Americans would have been in favor of simply letting those big banks fail. Yet they WERE "too big to fail". These were the Big Five investment banks on Wall Street: they stood at the very nexus, the nerve center, of the entire world economy. Had they all gone under, without being absorbed into other institutions, the entire world economy would have most certainly been plunged into the Second Great Depression----or, quite possibly, something even worse. As it was, only Lehman Brothers was allowed to simply fail, and even that triggered the most severe financial/banking/credit crisis since 1929-1933. The people who were vehemently opposed to TARP (the Troubled Assets Relief Program) in late 2008, were essentially saying we should punish a person who had started a fire by smoking in bed, by letting the fire spread to the whole city he lived in. What should worry us is that today, those big financial institutions are even bigger than they were back in 2008. We have NOT solved the problem of 'too big to fail'. Having said that, our financial institutions are in much HEALTHIER condition today than they were back then!

No nation has totally free markets, that is true. Nor would I even want that! I am NOT an advocate of pure laissez faire economics! But markets are a very powerful error-correcting mechanism. Market-based economies are much less susceptible to shortages or surpluses, which can be viewed as errors of economic coordination. [The centrally planned Soviet economy of the 1970s and 1980s was PLAGUED by horrific shortages and surpluses, causing massive discontent among the population, especially when they became aware of how much better things were in the West.]

Free markets exist whenever prices are allowed to adjust in response to changes in supply and demand. America DOES have free markets to a VASTLY greater extent than, say, Venezuela today. DO let me know if you wish to dispute that. But even Venezuela has more in the way of markets operating than does North Korea, the last bastion of Stalinist-style centralized planning on a state-level scale-----and it's an economic basket-case.
All true, which is why the right wing likes to paint Democrats, "leftists," "liberals," and anyone else who supports progressive ideas from universal health care to admitting that global warming is real and wanting to do something about it as "socialists," "Marxists," and in favor of "turning the US into
Venezuela."
 
Likes: BigLeRoy

Similar Discussions