You know me and how I focus on the median family as the primary economic objective of the USA. This blog will point out why.
When you listen to the talking heads on TV, most will tell you that free trade is good. They never tell you if poorly balanced of trade is good or not. That is the least of the problem. If you look at any situation, the view that you get is dependant on where you are standing. The picture can look much different depending on where you stand. Let's look at the picture.
Most of the people on TV are products of our universities and of Economics 101 which is taught there. They represent the high income group, like people who own the company or the store. These companies may have started off making things and then selling them to you and me. That was how they made so much money. If they could buy the same product that you and I make from China for less, why wouldn't they do it? They might even make more money selling things made in China than the ones made here by you and me. If that is the case, why wouldn't they claim that free trade is "good". As yo can see, some people see the picture from a different location.
Now, how about you and me who work for the company that makes the products that are sold here. If the store decides to buy the products from China, we lose our jobs. We are the ones who lose, not the store. From our point of view, unbalance trade is "bad.
The reason that I use the "median family income" as my primary objective is that it helps the most people, not just the store owner. Isn't this clear?
People on welfare who will pay more for products made here vs China will see the imbalance of trade as "good". They want their free money to go as far as it can and from their position they don' want to deal with the confusion that a trade war might create.
Here is another point. What if you had to deal with a bully who wanted part of your lunch money. For most people, they would rather share part of their lunch money with the bully rather than get a bloody nose every day. What if it went on and on and the bully demanded 100% of your lunch money? When do you stand up and stop the bully? It might result in a bigger fight and you might get a black eye too, So what? Isn't that what we are into with China? We have been doing nothing for 30 years and paying our lunch money to China. It is natural that the situation might get worse in the short term, but will be better in the long term. Most of us only think about the short term and that is why nothing has been done until now. Are you following this? I think that the situation is very simple as are most things when you finally understand what is going on.
When you listen to the talking heads on TV, most will tell you that free trade is good. They never tell you if poorly balanced of trade is good or not. That is the least of the problem. If you look at any situation, the view that you get is dependant on where you are standing. The picture can look much different depending on where you stand. Let's look at the picture.
Most of the people on TV are products of our universities and of Economics 101 which is taught there. They represent the high income group, like people who own the company or the store. These companies may have started off making things and then selling them to you and me. That was how they made so much money. If they could buy the same product that you and I make from China for less, why wouldn't they do it? They might even make more money selling things made in China than the ones made here by you and me. If that is the case, why wouldn't they claim that free trade is "good". As yo can see, some people see the picture from a different location.
Now, how about you and me who work for the company that makes the products that are sold here. If the store decides to buy the products from China, we lose our jobs. We are the ones who lose, not the store. From our point of view, unbalance trade is "bad.
The reason that I use the "median family income" as my primary objective is that it helps the most people, not just the store owner. Isn't this clear?
People on welfare who will pay more for products made here vs China will see the imbalance of trade as "good". They want their free money to go as far as it can and from their position they don' want to deal with the confusion that a trade war might create.
Here is another point. What if you had to deal with a bully who wanted part of your lunch money. For most people, they would rather share part of their lunch money with the bully rather than get a bloody nose every day. What if it went on and on and the bully demanded 100% of your lunch money? When do you stand up and stop the bully? It might result in a bigger fight and you might get a black eye too, So what? Isn't that what we are into with China? We have been doing nothing for 30 years and paying our lunch money to China. It is natural that the situation might get worse in the short term, but will be better in the long term. Most of us only think about the short term and that is why nothing has been done until now. Are you following this? I think that the situation is very simple as are most things when you finally understand what is going on.
