“Maybe it’s time to rethink what comprises leftist or rightist policies.”

Ya didn’t like it when obama was pushing them for his causes, so what makes you think things will be any better after some future dem wins the presidency?

This is the fundamental issue about arguing these kind of justifications.

They make some kind of sense in a fenced in, first order effect world.

But, in the real wide-open world with countless factors and possibilities playing out in multiple “rounds” of decisions, they perpetuate a problem we face – too much government – a situation that leaves open, if not expands, the means to exercise power in the hands of a few.

To keep advocating for more government action, expanding centralization of power, is like leaving the keys in the car. Sooner or later, someone will realize they are there and use them.

This ends up in the place many all feared from a clinton admin, only it is not “their” guy, but, worse, the absolutely “wrong” guy (on whichever side) who will discover the “keys” to turn the country into their personal empire (whatever label we may want to put on it).

But you seem to now be backing off the “globalist” view, and arguing that selective intervention is all you are really advocating.

I’ve said several times I was a supporter of NAFTA, though less enthusiastic when China joined WTO. Over the years I’ve realized that there need to be limits to free trade.

I’m not for arbitrary tariffs just to preserve industries that aren’t sustainable, but we need a economy with a healthy percentage of manufacturing jobs.

Some/Most of this may be accomplished by tax/regulations policies that are friendly to business.

We certainly shouldn’t be outsourcing industries vital to national defense for instance, at least not to countries that aren’t true allies.

Maybe it’s time to rethink what comprises leftist or rightist policies.

Again, I raised the question because trade restrictions have an impact.

The “only” $100 increase (assuming it is close to correct for the moment) represents an 18%+ increase on the iPhone 6S Plus (sells for $549 on Apple’s website).
.

“context that free trade is a very globalist / internationalist / one world position”

Now follow your theory for the rest of the products we consume.

~20% across the board increase on everything?! (And that is probably way understating the impact).

And, second, you didn’t address the impact on innovation. It is economic fact that if you increase a price in something (for all but a few anomalies) the demand reduces. Since we are not talking about profit margin increasing and that consumers are absorbing 100% of the cost increase, companies will be left with less for investment.
.

“What should be the limits of intervention? … It’s messy
…
I would reserve punitive tariffs on the most egregious examples. I do think we could establish a list of sectors that are vital to our national interests / survival that would be worth protecting, if necessary.”

But you seem to now be backing off the “globalist” view, and arguing that selective intervention is all you are really advocating.

Still, I don’t see any limits there that a dem wouldn’t use to the advantage of their crony friends (recall Solyndra?).
.

“We recently placed a 500% tariff on Chinese steel when they were found to be dumping. We certainly didn’t sit around waiting for the market to correct.”

I’m not sure what constitutes “dumping” in this case. Would like to know more about this case before commenting more.

But, this does seem to indicate that our current trade agreements have mechanisms to deal with anomalies (assuming all that is factually correct).
.

“It’s hard to be an economic purist”

It is also hard to ignore the economic impact.

Yet, the left do so all the time. Advocating for the same kind of policies, only applied to different groups, doesn’t make it any better.
.

You do realize that the dems have long been protectionists, until recently. They’ve slowly changed, but it still is leftist policy.

Here’s a link to the $100 price.

https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/

Or here if you prefer to have MIT parse it. Naturally there answer is more technical.

As long as Apple buyers are willing to pay Apples inflated prices, it won’t affect innovation. Would another $100 be the tipping point? Possibly, don’t know.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601491/the-all-american-iphone/

Now as to oil price supports or tariffs as a way to stabilize prices.

The boom and bust cycle of oil is disruptive to the America economy. If we could stabilize prices around $60, the majority of American oil producers would make money, and the economy could absorb the increase without disruptions to most other sectors. I say most, because you will no doubt find a energy sensitive sector that can’t pass on the increased costs.

Even the Saudis, I think, recognized in the last bubble that there is a maximum oil price the world can tolerate and it was exceeded. Blert thinks the price Saudis need long term is $100.
They are in financial straits with the current price of oil, which makes you wonder why they don’t cut production if they are desperate for increased revenue.

And if you think we should sit helplessly by because we’re waiting for the market to correct, the Saudis are doing something akin to dumping. Punitive tariffs are a normal form of penalizing a company for that practice.

We recently placed a 500% tariff on Chinese steel when they were found to be dumping. We certainly didn’t sit around waiting for the market to correct.

I’m sitting in a former B-52 hanger, in an arid region of the state, all because of government intervention.

It’s hard to be an economic purist. What should be the limits of intervention?
When Eisenhower pushed the interstate road system, he was met with criticism.

It’s messy, but currently industries have redress when there is direct evidence of unfair market practices. Some though are more subtle and hard to police.

We’re on the same page that some of the over-regulation by past administrations can be rescinded and have a positive effect on the economy including the rust belt. Lowering the corporate income tax (or doing away with it entirely) would help.

I would reserve punitive tariffs on the most egregious examples. I do think we could establish a list of sectors that are vital to our national interests / survival that would be worth protecting, if necessary.

The menu description may be different, but it is the same crap sandwich, only delivered to us by a different waiter, claiming how wonderful this version will taste.
.
We don’t need to worry about oil prices and the oil industry.

Shouldn’t we rather the ME use up their oil reserves selling theirs on the “cheap”, rather than we using ours up in the false notion that it gains us anything to do so at government set prices?

And the thing is, high oil prices will have a significant dampening effect across our entire economy.

Fat chance we would retain a majority in Congress in two years with such folly in place.

It doesn’t.

Before you do a victory dance:

1) Fact is, my definition and your definition of what a “healthy” market differs. It is no more “healthy” to have price supports, as it is to have rent control, or minimum wage legislation. It just hurts the country in favor of a particular set of people.

2) I was responding to this:

“we used a massive government program to win WWII, we shouldn’t wait for market based solutions to win this economic war.“

You justify government intervention for oil prices. The next guy for radical trade interventions, the next for something else, and so on, and so on…. ALL are justified under some incantation of “strategic need in our economic war”.

What couldn’t be?

Too far down that path and we might well provoke REAL military war.

You challenge me to answer your question, but you don’t return the favor (actually, I asked first):
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/10/short-takes-on-a-busy-day/#comment-1900411

Guess I have more patience than you.

That may be likely true. But it is certainly worth considering a way to avoid this and strike a coherent energy policy that stabilizes prices and doesn’t benefit our enemies.

We have that policy to stabilize prices and supply of food. Would it benefit the country to have one for energy?

And would the drawbacks outweigh the advantages? I don’t know.

I do know I would be willing to pay more for gas if it could be shown that by doing so I was weakening our adversaries, of which I consider Saudi Arabia to be one.

Big Maq, I’m still waiting since you’re the one speculating it could.

Big Maq Says:
November 14th, 2016 at 9:27 am

Are you choosing my words for me?

What a convenient way to win a debate. 🙂