Trump Is Declared Correct on Trade Deal, Not Rand & WSJ

Kevin L. Kearns reports from AEA:

However, Mr. Trump’s key points in response to Baker were: (1) that China could enter the agreement “through the back door,” which means that they are not an original or “front door” party to the agreement, and (2) that China’s currency manipulation has proven to be a big problem for U.S. manufacturing businesses, which neither the Bush II or Obama administrations have addressed successfully.

Rather than being the ignoramus that the Journal claims him to be, Mr. Trump is in fact correct on both points. The TPP is a “dockable agreement,” which means that, in the future, any country wanting to join the final deal can do so if it agrees to the full terms. Beijing has already expressed interest in joining the TPP, and recently, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry actually went on record to invite both China and Russia into the fold.

Trump is also correct that the TPP lacks any enforceable provisions on currency manipulation (such as sanctions that would actually punish violators), as opposed to the TPP requirements for reporting on currency and meetings to discuss manipulation. In emphasizing this glaring omission, Mr. Trump focused on potential member China as an example but his remarks covered the free pass currently being given to known TPP manipulators such as Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia, and other potential TPP member-manipulators, such as Korea and Taiwan.

Rand Paul, who was either unable to follow Trump’s line of argument, or is fine with currency manipulation, interrupted to explain that China isn’t part of the deal. Ok, thanks, Rand, but Donald never said it was. And Trump is correct that China’s currency malfeasance has cost the U.S. dearly in terms of displaced factories and jobs, foregone wealth creation, loss of market share both at home and abroad, and diminishing power and influence.

Rand has likely been smoking too much of the weed he wants legalised. I’m sick of the media manufacturing Trump comments into mistakes when they absolutely are not.

One of the few Trump positions I dislike is his call to take foreign oil. Small disagreements such as this (not this specifically) have actually led EIC into treason against its purported mission of trade. EIC owes Trump an apology. Partisans need to see the big picture; Let’s not sweat the small stuff.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Trump Is Declared Correct on Trade Deal, Not Rand & WSJ

  1. Pingback: Trump Is Declared Correct on Trade Deal, Not Rand & WSJ | Donald Trump News

  2. Kirt Higdon

    What exactly is the currency manipulation referred to in this article which is engaged in by various foreign countries while the US escapes any mention? As far as I can tell, the US has a central banking system, the Fed, which exists for the very purpose of currency manipulation – and is quite good at it, in fact. Commentators such as Serge Trifkovic, Peter Schiff, and many others have pointed out how successfully the Fed has exported the inflation it has created to other countries – China as much or more than any. Or is this another case of American exceptionalism – OK if US elites do it but dastardly if other countries do it?

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      Yes, American exceptionalism. It’s good if it’s beneficial to us 🙂

      I am not myself arguing for such as an ideal. My point was just: Trump right; Rand wrong!

      My ideal, if it matters, is do away with Federal Reserve, only set currency by having federal government print additional money as is needed or else affix the dollar to gold or another basis.

      And… I want trade tariffs or even possibly quotas, with the aim partly for autarky but also to obtain an advantage over competitors. I take the usual competitive, almost “mercantilist” position that supposedly leads to wars 🙂 However, I’d argue that the international system we have today clearly also leads to wars.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Kirt Higdon

        First, the moral law applies in all areas (conspicuously including finance) and there are no exceptions. To say that corrupt behavior is OK if it benefits me (or “us”) is simply to advocate being an individual or collective sociopath. And for that matter, how have the Fed’s policies been of benefit to “us” if by “us” you mean anyone other than the banksters and oligarchs and their cronies? Maybe you are included in that particular “us”, but I definitely am not.

        Like

      2. weavercht Post author

        Kirt, I do not like currency manipulation. That is not what I personally want. As to international trade, every polity tends to argue for its advantage. No one plays fair in the current system.

        Anyway, as to me, I do want greater autarky. Aristotle wrote of how states should produce their own things, as I recall, whatever is necessary for the good life. And separately, I want more productive capital and technological secrets in the US, to give the US that advantage so the US can trade American goods for global resources, have the rest of the world at a disadvantage in this way but not cheat in trade.

        I think you misunderstood what I meant. I do not believe my argument is in any way immoral. And my ideal is a large middle class. I tend to want an aristocracy, but I do not like a large wealth gap. I want American workers to benefit.

        Like

  3. Kirt Higdon

    Well, there is nothing wrong with productive capital and well-paid workers, but if some technology is beneficial to people in general, why should it be kept secret? That’s rather selfish and petty. Certainly patents should be granted to its inventor to allow them a decent return on their efforts. And I don’t see why putting my counter-party at a disadvantage in trade is a worthy objective. Sure we should trade American goods for global resources and vice versa as appropriate. Right now we trade American dollars for global resources and goods. Controlling the world’s reserve currency gives “us” (really our rulers) a tremendous advantage in trade which our rulers enforce by military power when needed. This is a corrupt and unjust system and the sooner it is replaced, the better for everyone.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      Kirt,

      China used to fiercely guard its silk worms, for example, and I respect it for that.

      I 100% agree with your desire to get rid of the current system of trading US dollars for resources and goods. And I also agree with your unstated desire to drastically reduce the US military. I do not want empire. Really, my personal ideal is a smaller polity.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Kirt Higdon

        I’m with you on everything but the silk worms. What the Chinese did was not respectable, but relatively harmless only because silk is a luxury good. Had they done the same with some plant seed that could have saved millions from starvation, would you have respected that? Besides, I would say that hoarding any reproductive plant or animal in great demand would be useless and merely make the hoarder subject to theft or robbery. Brazil tried to prevent the export of rubber plants back in the day. An Englishman stole some and soon there were competing rubber plantations in Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s