Connect with us

Economy

Tariffs and bailouts: Necessary evils if conservatives want free trade to return sooner

Published

on

Tariffs and bailouts Necessary evils if conservatives want free trade to return sooner

Republicans can debate all day whether they can fend off election day backlash from the trade war with China by bailing out farmers in key red states, but there’s no way to argue that these are conservative moves. They’re not, and the GOP will have to reconcile that well beyond the 2020 election.

At this stage, true conservatives are being forced into a major conundrum. Do we ignore the “fair trade” tactics that people like Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer have been promoting for years and support the GOP for fear of Democrats, or do we stick to our guns and demand free trade continue to do what it has done for decades – drive American prosperity?

It isn’t popular in today’s politically charged atmosphere to be a conservative who opposes anything the President does. Few Republicans in DC have the political capital accumulated to enable them that luxury. Many who could survive getting on the President’s bad side by speaking out against his progressive view on trade have still chosen to support him even if that means simply avoiding the question. The taciturn approach seems to be the most popular one among free trade conservatives, including most in the House Freedom Caucus and some staunch conservatives in the Senate.

Others are taking the approach of blaming China, and while there is definitely truth in this notion, it doesn’t change the fact that the solution the President is employing not only goes against fiscal conservatism, but also fails to address the actual problem with trade. His constant hammering of trade deficits is a leftist talking point that is demonstrably untrue; when a nation’s economy is doing well, it will accumulate a trade deficit because it has the money to import. In other words, conventional wisdom has always shown trade deficits are a positive indicator of a country’s financial health.

But what the President says, perhaps for the sake of making it easily understandable to voters, isn’t actually what he’s fighting. He’s pushing against reliance on other nations for resources and labor as part of his goal to bring American jobs back home. He wants people to buy American and businesses to rely on each other instead of importing so much. These are goals that make sense until we look at actual trends of a rising global economy and apply the reality that we’re a consumer nation. With those concepts in the mix, it’s clear the President’s goals and plan to achieve them are two or three decades too late.

For the past three years, I’ve posted at least a dozen articles promoting free trade and reminding Republicans over 80% of them opposed Schumer’s Chinese tariff proposals as recently as 2015. Once the President embraced the Chuck-China plan, suddenly most in the GOP forgot what fiscal conservatism and unadulterated capitalism actually meant. I’ve invoked economists like Thomas Sowell. I’ve pointed to clear indicators that the economy is thriving despite tariffs and that if we stuck with free trade the economy would actually be doing even better. But the masses were unswayed. More importantly, the White House was unswayed.

The United States cannot survive a trade war for long because as prices go up, Americans will get antsy. The only solace is knowing China will be impacted more. That’s what the President is banking on.

Like it or not, that’s what conservatives have to bank on as well. We’re on this path and the President isn’t going to back down based on conservatives speaking out. It’s difficult for me to say that since I’m a huge proponent of keeping our politicians heading in the right direction, including our often-malleable President, but he’s pulled the trigger and placed his future in the hands of Xi Jinping, so we’re just going to have to ride out the storm.

We may be able to survive as an overall economy, but there are people who will be affected in the short term DC needs to protect from a political perspective if Republicans don’t want a bloodbath in 2020. The most obvious are the farmers, which means the other leftist economic policy must be invoked as well, namely bailouts. I can argue all day about how bailouts and subsidies are the least American financial concept in existence, but again I’m forced to stand down from coffee shop arguments over them and focus on political realities. If we’re stuck with tariffs, we’re stuck with bailouts. Thankfully, there’s a chance that if they are done properly, the revenue from the tariffs can pay for the bailouts. It’s a conservative solution for a progressive problem that shouldn’t have to be offered, but at this point there aren’t many other options.

The bottom line is this: If conservatives rightly want to put an end to tariffs, we need to either support them or stand down in arguing against them. China will be looking for weakening support for the President to decide whether or not to make a deal. If support for the President remains strong, especially in his caucus, then China will be more inclined to come to the table. We know mainstream media will bemoan the exact same tariffs they would have wholeheartedly supported if a Democrat proposed them, so we already have that uphill battle to fight. But if there’s contention within the GOP itself, China will be more emboldened to ride out the storm until a Democrat is in the White House.

Don’t get me started on the irony of a world where China’s hoping a Democrat will come in and bring back free trade.

When you’re going through hell, keep going. Winston Churchill was talking about more pressing matters when he said those words, but they apply to fiscal conservatives today.

If conservatives really want free trade to reemerge as our fiscal mantra, we have to push forward with these tariffs and bailouts. The sooner they can be effective, the sooner we’ll get back to doing things the right way.

Advertisement

0

Economy

Why Trump’s rapid release of oil reserves just saved the economy

Published

on

Why Trumps rapid release of oil reserves just saved the economy

It wasn’t the type of news that will make many headlines. In fact, the major news networks have barely touched on it, which may actually be a good thing. Shortly after it was realized the Iranian drone attack on a Saudi oil refinery would cripple their production, the White House started getting the balls rolling to release our precious Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President Tweeted as much today.

Despite the media’s collective yawn, this is an extremely important move to prevent the economy from facing instability. Oil still drives most financial markets around the world. When the flow of oil is considered to be at risk, investors often panic. Today’s move is designed to prevent that panic.

Don’t get me wrong. This wasn’t a hard decision nor a breakthrough in policy. Any President would likely have done the same thing. But it’s important that the White House moved very quickly on this to stifle any Monday oil jitters on Wall Street. Waiting even an extra day, as some Presidents may have done while we wait for details surrounding the attack and Saudi Arabia’s ability to rebound, could have been catastrophic.

This demonstrates a proper understanding of how the markets work. Foreign affairs, particularly as they pertain to oil, can have swift and dramatic effects on the national and world economies. It’s normally best to be patient and wait for events to unfold before acting, but when it comes to oil, quick reassurances are necessary.

Between tariffs and instability in the Middle East, the economy is always on the verge of being a roller coaster ride. It’s important for the White House to be responsive and engaged. This move should alleviate market fears just in time for Monday.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Economy

U.S. poverty falls to lowest level since 2007 and media’s response is downright comical

Published

on

US poverty falls to lowest level since 2007 and medias response is downright comical

Did you hear that the poverty level fell below where it was prior to the economic collapse twelve years ago? Probably not, because legacy media doesn’t want you to hear about that. They don’t want you to realize the economy is in better shape than it’s been in decades. They don’t want you to look at your paycheck and bank account and realize you’re doing better now than you’ve done in a long time, perhaps ever.

They don’t want you to know this because if you realize you’re doing better, you’re more likely to acknowledge much of this is due to President Trump’s first term in the White House. If you reach the conclusion that your personal prosperity and the prosperity of those around you is better than it was before, you will be more inclined to vote for President Trump and other Republicans in the 2020 election. The media and their cronies in the Democratic Party can’t have that, so they bury stories like these.

But even when they report it, they do so in a way that is so biased, so hilariously tilted, one might read a story about how poverty is now low and come out of it thinking the economy is tanking as we speak. That’s how radically unhinged the reports have been, taking reality and attempting to morph it into their own version that paints a much grimmer picture.

This article from NPR starts off basically saying things are bad even though they’re good. It’s pure doublethink as part of their (attempted) Orwellian control over the collective consciousness of this nation.

U.S. Census Bureau Reports Poverty Rate Down, But Millions Still Poor

The U.S. poverty rate declined slightly last year, but finally fell below the 2007 level, right before the Great Recession pushed millions of Americans out of work and into financial distress.

The improving economy was a key factor in the decline. The U.S. Census Bureau noted in its annual report on income and poverty that there were 2.3 million more full-time, year-round workers last year and that median earnings for all such workers rose by more than three percent.

Amid these positive signs, the bureau reported separately that the number of people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance rose from 25.6 million people in 2017 to 27.5 million in 2018. That included 4.3 million children. Health advocacy groups called the increase extremely troubling and blamed declines in Medicaid coverage, especially for Hispanic children and children under the age of six.

Even when reporting great news for Americans, mainstream media does everything in its power to convince people it’s all just awful. “You’re not really prospering,” they’ll tell you. They torture the numbers until they say what they want them to say.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

California, the birthplace of the gig economy, passes bill to kill it

Published

on

California the birthplace of the gig economy passes bill to kill it

There was a dream that sparked the formation of companies like Uber, Lyft, GrubHub, and other early adopters of the “gig economy.” The dream was simple and elegant: Connect consumers with people willing to serve. Apps were created. Lifestyles were adjusted. The convergence of digital and mobile technologies had given birth to a way of doing business that hadn’t been possible before.

Today, California legislature moved to taint the basic premise of the gig economy by taking the “gig” out of the mix. They moved to force companies like Uber to accept those taking advantage of their service from the provider end as employees.

Bill to limit gig economy now heads to Gov. Newsom’s desk

California lawmakers have sent the governor a bill that would give new wage and benefit protections to workers at so-called gig economy companies such as Uber and Lyft.

The 56-15 Assembly vote Wednesday marked a victory for labor unions and a defeat for tech companies that vehemently oppose the proposal.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has already said he supports it.

This flies in the face of why and how the gig economy was built in the first place. It treats gig workers as victims, as if they were forced to embrace the lifestyle and somehow need protections like indentured servants. And while many of these workers are celebrating the move, many will very likely find out the repercussions were not what they were promised by Democratic lawmakers.

There is no way companies like Lyft and GrubHub can continue to do business the way they’re currently doing it, nor at the costs they currently offer, thanks to this asinine legislation. It will force artificial raises in “wages” that were agreed upon by the workers in the first place. This will drive up prices to consumers, which will limit their usage. As fewer people call for an Uber, drivers will find their win was a great big loser for them.

But it’s a win-win for labor unions. It’s a win-win for Democrats. It’s a win-win for everyone other than anyone who uses the services or is employed by them.

In other words, the vast majority of Californians will lose as a result of this labor union victory.

This flies in the face of what the gig economy means to America. By inserting more government control, there will be repercussions felt by the companies, their users, and the workers who were supposed to benefit from this move.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending