What’s Not Fair about Free Trade? | 5-Minute Videos
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- What benefits the world economy more: government-imposed trade regulations or the free exchange of ideas and commerce? For Daniel Hannan, president of the Institute for Free Trade, freedom always wins.
Become a member of this channel to support PragerU: l.prageru.com/3QUqK4q
Script:
Suppose someone invented a pill that let you live to the age of 120 in perfect health, and then die painlessly.
That pill would put a lot of people out of business. It would be bad news for doctors and nurses. It would be catastrophic for medical insurers. It would throw millions of home care staff out of work.
But would anyone see those as good reasons to ban it?
And would anyone care where the pill had been invented? In their country or someone else’s?
What goes for that pill goes for any other product that would improve our lives. We shouldn’t make things harder to obtain simply on the grounds that they originate somewhere else.
Actually, a lot of people disagree with that idea. Opponents of free trade - and there are many - say things that sound perfectly reasonable. Things like:
“We need to protect our strategic industries!”
“We can’t survive these expanding trade deficits!”
“We must grow our own food!”
“We want trade to be fair!”
“We can’t compete with slave-wage economies!”
All those arguments sound like common sense. But all of them would ban our miracle pill. All of them would leave us poorer.
Let’s take them in order.
Protectionism:
Trade barriers don’t protect industries; they make them inefficient, uncompetitive, and dependent on state handouts.
As Ronald Reagan put it:
“Instead of protectionism, we should call it destructionism. It destroys jobs, weakens our industries, harms exports, costs billions of dollars to consumers, and damages our overall economy.”
Trade Deficits:
There is no correlation between a country’s balance of trade and its economic growth.
The greatest benefit of trade is cheaper imports because they save consumers money that then gets spent on other stuff, which is what drives growth.
If, say, China wants to subsidize its steel production, that’s a gift to our construction workers, our car makers, and our consumers, courtesy of the Chinese state.
Growing your own food:
You know which country leads the world in that? North Korea. It has made self-sufficiency - juche - its ruling principle. Yup, that’s North Korea, the world’s leader in manmade famines.
The way to have secure food - or secure anything - is to source it from the widest possible variety of suppliers. That way you are not at risk from a shock or disruption - which might as easily happen in your own country as anywhere else.
Fair Trade:
The only thing that’s fair is not putting the government’s thumb on the scales. Protectionism by definition, privileges some politically connected lobby over the general population. The way to “protect” our industries is to make them more competitive. And you do that by lowering taxes and cutting regulations.
Competing with lower-wage economies:
That’s what makes poor countries richer - and makes rich countries richer. Lower wages let developing nations compete and let wealthier countries focus on higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs. The iPhone is assembled in China, but the design and the profits are in the USA.
Look at the global impact. As recently as 1981, 40 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today it is 8 percent. 300 people have escaped extreme poverty since you clicked on this video. That’s 300 new arguments for free trade.
So why doesn’t everyone get it?
See the rest: l.prageru.com/45dTpbs
Follow PragerU on social media!
Instagram ➡️ ( / prageru )
Twitter ➡️ ( / prageru )
Facebook ➡️ ( / prageru )
#freetrade #prageru #fairness
There are serious problems with this video.
1. China is a rigorous, aggressive adversary of our country. We should not be depending on China for our goods, especially essential goods. It's really disturbing to hear anyone say such fulsome praise for an authoritarian regime.
2. His analogy about a perfect pill which solves all our health problems is a rather silly analogy, one which does not take into account the complexities of trade, foreign policy, and domestic policy.
3. Even strong, well-researched advocates for free enterprise such as Thomas Sowell do recognize that tariffs to protect essential industries are appropriate. No country should be dependent on a foreign adversary for munitions, for example.
4. North Korea's main problem is that it is a COMMUNIST STATE, not that it seeks self-sufficiency as much as possible. Wow, Prager U's videos are losing quality.
You may have a point regarding defense munitions. But, what about smartphones, cars, televisions, etc. which can be made at higher quality and much lower prices than if made in the U.S. Why shouldn't the U.S. by the provider of high quality technology, design and services to the world which is something we would do less of if we were making TVs, smartphones, etc. Besides the TVs and smartphones would cost the consumers a lot more.
@@drzman6901not higher quality, but lower prices, yes. Not even better for the environment.
But the lower prices IS THE PROBLEM. You are just sub-contracting slave labor. And destroying your own manufacturing Economy.
The goods cost is artificially reduced by using slave labor.
Saying “it would cost more to use US goods” is a dumb statement. It is actually saying “I would rather use slaves to make a TV be $50 cheaper”.
Nothing in this video is really correct. Take the “it improves the lives in poorer countries”. No. It doesn’t because the wages in those countries are kept down by the government there.
The vital factor missing from this guys liberal free trade sales-pitch, is that he is not promoting "Free & Fair Trade," - just unregulated trade, without restrictions against abusive practice's !
@@rebchizelbeak5392 If a country is producing goods at lower prices, it frees up money in the purchasers pockets. It frees U.S. citizens to produce high valued goods for sale in world markets. If we resort to citizens making trivial things, then they are unavailable to produce higher quality goods not made elsewhere plus more of their family budgets are adversely affected while the federal government collects tariffs. The producing country is harmed if it provides those good through subsidies. I abhor slave labor and this is unfortunate and must be address and stopped by any means, but it will not be affected by tariffs.
@@rebchizelbeak5392 You either believe that Adam Smith was correct about specialization freeing individuals to make better things, or you don't. Would you care to venture a guess at what smartphones and TVs would cost if made in the U.S.? If you think they are expensive now, it's highly likely with our regulations and taxes that they would be absolutely unaffordable.
I really disagree with this. North Korea is probably the worst example you could have ever thought of. The problem with North Korea has nothing to do with the fact that they are trying to be self-sufficient. It's because they're communist, communism = starvation.
Completely agree with the point of self-destruction communism brings. Except for China, North Korea tries to keep the rest of the world distant, to the detriment f its people [ which doesn't matter if you're named Kim]. Further, keeping foreign products and influence out lets you lie about how great YOUR country is.
That’s true, but banning free trade is part of that. In fact communists try to ban trade altogether, and North Korea has made all bartering and trade illegal.
The United States shouldn't become economically dependant on Chinese goods, especially considering the fact that China is a totalitarian regime that threatens the interests of the United States. they are also engaging in severe human rights violations in Xinjiang. Therefore while I advocate for the United States to trade with countries like the United Kingdom, the EU, and Canada, as this is mutually beneficial, I am against outsourcing all manufacturing jobs to a country that threatens democracy.
You disagree with the idea that a country trying to be self-sufficient would be poorer than one that traded with the rest of the world? That’s the point. You can disagree with the example of North Korea, isn’t the overall point obvious?
@@fiddlinmike I do agree with the idea that self sufficient countries are poorer, as has been proven but I think North Korea was the worst example they could have used, as it's dependant on a lot of imports especially from China and the fact that it's a communist state. I do mostly advocate for free trade unless it's with a rival country that threatens the west such as Russia or China. Therefore I do advocate for protectionism against countries that oppose national interests.
I'm for free trade except for when it comes to our geopolitical adversaries. I don't think we should have free trade with China, Russia, or Iran. I'm all for free trade with Canada, Britain, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
No free trade hurts you; everybody benefits from trade. Macroecon 101...
100% agree.
@@xryphon Because of China, there is no free trade in the world. Because China plays by different rules. China does Not play by free trade rules. China pours $$$Trillions into their own industries/companies so that other countries who follow "free trade" rules lose. China spends zero on their own citizens & puts all the money into subsidized domestic manufacturing so that their exports cost pennies & put other companies out of business. China also has increasingly been not allowing Western companies to even sell in China. Also China has "won" by stealing all Intellectual IP from Western companies. For the past 40 years. They do not create/innovate. They steal.
Therefore, yes, since China does Not have Free Trade, you can have Free Trade with all countries that play by the rules.
If our political adversaries are willing to subsidize their industries, and we get their products cheaper than we can make them here, why would you want to stop them from impoverishing themselves and, at the same time making our lives better?
@@drzman6901 Because their goal is to bankrupt our companies that make the same things, so that if war comes, they can cut off the supply and we won't have our own manufacturers any more. Free trade is great in peace time, but WW3 is on the way, and if you haven't noticed that yet then you're in for a nasty surprise.
We would appreciate it Deeply if anyone could pray for us our 12 year old daughter Candice living with chronic congested heart failure passed away peacefully in her sleep may 30 2022 we are all devastated please pray for peace and comfort with God's love conquers all amen we lost our first daughter 15 years old Angel passed away peacefully in her sleep in 2018 she had Ms this is very hard we are grateful to God for two wonderful daughters and we will be altogether again praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you All
😔🙏
I know that this is not easy and there are no words to comfort you. However, I can tell you that she is somewhere that there will be no more crying.
Sorry for your loss. May God bless you and your family. Amen.
I can’t imagine what you and your family are going through but sometimes no amount of comforting words from someone on the outside could change the way you feel. Having saying this just knows that you’re not alone and God knows your pain. There’s a saying without pain we could never have experience joy. That’s one of the many reasons why God sent us down to earth. It’s not easy but it’s necessary for our spiritual growth. I will pray for you and your family and asked the Lord to give you peace through your sufferings. I believe that the pain of a lost one will always be a part of a person life. Ask the Lord to help you endure the pain and get you through this difficult times. God does have the power to take away the sting away and replace it with hope. May the Lord give you rest from your sorrows even if it’s temporary ❤🙏🏾
I speak God's comfort through this trying time. I speak against the hand of the devourer in all areas of your life and family. You live breath and have your being in Christ Jesus far abo all principality and powers
I'm 100% in agreement with the premise... if it was in a Fantasy Land where we didn't face Authoritarian Nations (like Russia, China and Iran) as our nemesis; didn't live in under a Fiat Currency system allowing a government to turn on the printing press to make more money on political whims; didn't live under a progressive tax regulated system with 16000 pages of rules, loopholes and regulations; and under a system that allows the super rich and powerful to gain access to Congress with well paid Lobbyists who throw cocktail & dinner parties every night in the nations capital...
CATO, LIBERTARIANS (especially the MISES crowd) live a charmed life thinking and espousing Utopian Ideals... fanciful pondering just like Socialists... without considering Human Nature and THE REAL WORLD.
... nice little vid, but you all are as unrealistic as the Marxist crowd..
You are right that we don’t live in a libertarian utopia. But if we zoom out, shouldn’t we recognize that the trajectory of the protectionists is wrong? I wouldn’t want to throw my hands up and say all is lost because the real world isn’t perfect. The great tide of politics and public opinion, for reasons the author explains, is moving in the direction of believing that government needs to manage trade. Hundreds of years of evidence suggests that’s wrong. At the very least, he’s telling us why protectionists need a very strong justification for their interference, and that justification can’t be as simple as saying the real world is too complex. Notice that it’s government’s prior actions which have given us fiat currency, political whims, complex rules, loopholes, and political access by the wealthy. This guy is trying to wake people up to that reality by explaining that free trade would be better than government managed trade. That’s not an unrealistic message. I’m glad Cato and Mises spread that message - perhaps it will inspire more people to look critically at the awful policies proposed by both Biden and Trump.
I don't think there was a single PragerU video that I didn't agree with (at least partially), until this one. At first I thought that maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but then I read the comments and realized that there's indeed something off with this.
Nothing at all off with this. Economists since Adam Smith have been telling people that the way to greater wealth is through free trade. Protectionists who are concerned with only their own greedy monopoly granted by government tariffs have made it sound like protectionism is something that benefits us all when the opposite is true. Tariffs and protectionism make almost all of us poorer.
Free trade is great when both sides don’t regulate highly, don’t tax and don’t subsidize their industries. The issue with China is that they subsidize their industries to export and protect them as well against foreign competition.
100% facts. China does not play by Free Trade rules and never will. China does not play by WTO rules even though they were allowed to join WTO. When everyone plays by the rules but China doesn't, it is not fair to all other countries. China has no Free Trade, therefore the world cannot have free trade because of China.
That subsidization harms China and helps us if we can buy products from them cheaper than we can make them here. Why be concerned with China harming itself and helping us with cheaper product? Especially, when collectively, we can spend more time producing other products that have world-wide demand. I agree that the U.S. is guilty of industrial subsidization and excessive regulations. Subsidies and regulations are mostly use to favor political contributors and prevent competition.
@@drzman6901 don’t you think that subsidized products from China don’t hurt our local businesses as well? I don’t care if China hurts itself with its economical policies, I just don’t want them to pull us to the bottom with them.
@@drzman6901 the subsidies are temporary, they subsidise to destroy all competition and then hike up prices as soon as they have a monopoly, or use this monopoly for political coercion.
@@drzman6901 No free trade for authoritarian regimes. Do not enrich countries that will engage you in conflict. Do not engage in free trade with countries that do not respect basic human rights. Do not engage in free trade with countries that make ecological disasters that affect the globe. Free trade is not supposed to be a race to the bottom with the ensuing destruction of the commons. Free trade is only possible between democratic governments with functioning legislatures and relatively low corruption.
I am not sure Milton Freedman or Thomas sowell would agree with you .
I think they would, both are in favour of free markets, which also means free trade
How would they possibly not agree with this? You obviously haven't read enough of either one.
I live in Malaysia, we're blessed by cheap import Jasmine rice subsidised by Thailand
When people talk about the free market economy I shake my head that we are so delusional that we think we have one.
Exactly. America is a crony capitalist corporatocracy run by an oligarchy.
Obviously we don't, and most of the commenters seem perfectly fine with that. Apparently having the government tell us which producers we can buy from is perfectly okay with lots of people.
No. This is as utopian as the communists.
You need to be able to self sustain in key areas. Sub-contracting all the “dirty work” to other countries means they have significant power over you and you are at a strategic disadvantage in war or emergency.
Free trade does not work in practice when it only goes one way, either via taxes or forcing wages down.
Taiwan comes to mind. Our "free trade" with them means that we're going to war if China makes a move on them.
Same issue with the Saudis. Amazing how the people who tell us how "free" anything isn't really free conveniently forget everything they know about economics when it comes to trade. Dependency very much does have a price.
His last sentence addresses your point:
“If you want to sell me something, and I want to buy it from you, THE GOVERNMENT HAD BETTER HAVE A GOOD REASON TO COME BETWEEN US. Me living in a different country, that's no reason at all.”
Hiring someone to do your dirty work gives them power over you? Wow, I guess the workers who claim that employers have all the power are all wrong.
@@billyjonesy2972 Why should anyone care?
We judge free trade based on whether it's a benefit for everyone, not just for the people rich enough to transport goods hundreds or thousands of miles.
When NAFTA rolled out, L. Neil Smith observed that if it’s an agreement between nations and it’s more than two paragraphs long, it’s not about FREE trade.
NAFTA was about freeER trade, not completely free trade. No one has ever achieve completely free trade.
@@PeteSmoot FREE trade can only exist without government interference. It existed here in the late 18th century (not with regard to whiskey), and in the west for part of the 19th, but our Founders’ ideal of government only protecting out freedoms died early.
When a nation with great abundance wants to destroy a nation without that abundance, all it needs to do is dump inventory on that nation for well-below-market prices. The target nation can't compete, and the associated industry or commodity - as well as any investors or stakeholders - is utterly ruined.
This can happen with raw materials, manufactured goods, and even with money itself. There is a nation doing just that, and "free trade" is the last thing we want with that country.
Totally wrong. You sound like you would turn down manna from heaven. It would put all the manna makers out of business. Too bad they found a vaccine for polio, it put all the iron lung makers out of business. Where is this history of destroyed nations that were showered with abundance and were utterly ruined?
In that scenario, the United States has nothing to fear.
Unless I missed something here, there's a contradiction in here.
If free trade is defined as "without government influence, we can't have the Chinese Government subsidizing things like their steel industry and "accept it as a free gift" as was stated here.
That condition breaks the idea of free trade.
So either I'm misunderstanding something or that whole section about Chinese subsidies of their own industry needs to be removed.
Either that or the definition of free trade must allow for government pushing on the scales of trade.
Subsidies and currency manipulation are two policies that are anti-capitalist.
The contradiction comes from the fact that public investment makes you more competitive even in an otherwise deregulated capitalist trading economy. Imagine it as a formal game like in the prisoner's dilemma:
YOU deregulate - THEY invest = THEIR advantage
YOU invest - THEY deregulate = YOUR advantage
YOU invest - THEY invest = DRAW
YOU deregulate - THEY deregulate = DRAW
The problem is that it is nigh-impossible to convince _every country in the world_ to deregulate and adhere to strict neoliberal capitalism, because countries want things like healthcare and industrial subsidies to power up their economy. So if you deregulate as even just one country performs public investment in their own industry, you will always be at a competitive disadvantage relative to them.
In simple terms, this is the reason why countries with roads and schooling like the USA are more competitive than countries without roads and schooling like Somalia. It simply extends to other, more literal forms of investment as well.
@@Blaze6108 Internal investment in something that a foreign nation would have no direct benefit from, like roads and schooling, is one thing.
Subsidizing a good meant to be traded just so it prices out a competitor is no longer free trade.
@@Dawn_Breaker Yeah but that's my point: paradoxically, when two parties engage in trade, the party doing the least free trade wins. And if you engage in it as 'punishment' against that party, you will ALSO lose because you're missing out on the other benefits of trade (economic growth etc...).
In this context, the subsidies we're talking about are almost always a form of investment, because literal cash subsidies are in fact quite inefficient even if you're China.
The actual solution is probably to engage in trade while either matching these subsidies/investments yourself to retain competitiveness, or agreeing on how much of them there should be, for example with trade deals that regulate work hours (allowing slavery hours is also a form of subsidy!).
@@Blaze6108 even if we take that as an undisputed fact, it still does not address the inaccuracy of claiming it's a beneficial to the US as it undercuts its own steel products when there are willing workers and decreases the amount of steel available to the market for new economic growth
If anyone's interested, there's a British band called UNIT that released a whole album inspired by and dedicated to Prageru, TPUSA and The Daily Wire. I discovered their You Tube channel a couple of years ago and most of their stuff is excellent. I'm not an agent for the band nor do I know any of them but, to judge from their lyrics, they seem genuine. I found them by typing UNIT Andy Martin The Voice Of Reason into YT which did the trick. They have the entire album as a playlist. One of their tracks features the mighty Ben Shapiro, a couple of later pieces feature Matt Walsh and they do a cracking version of Columbia Gem Of The Ocean, too!
Whut?
That's "how" an empire falls.
Huh. I'd argue empires fall more because of internal strife, pointless external wars, and natural disasters.
Although honestly, most empires make no economic sense. They're land and tax grabs by some power mad dictator who wants bragging rights. Far better to trade with other people than somehow get them under our legal or military control.
99% of this video is good stuff the single stupidest thing I’ve heard someone say is North Korea is self sufficient and that doesn’t work so we shouldn’t try to be self sufficient
Just try to be self sufficient in your own household, your own block, or even your own city. You will soon discover that you will be dirt poor, just like North Korea.
How do most of you guys still make profit, even with the downturn of the economy and ever increasing life standards
Well, I picked the challenge to put my finances in order. Then I invested in cryptocurrency, stocks, through the assistance of my discretionary fund manager
She's Stephanie Aaron Trentham
This is correct, Stephanie strategy has normalized winning trades for me also, and it's a huge milestone for me looking back to how it all started..
Yes, I agree with you. Her platform is wonderful, and her strategies are exceptional
This is great. I've always been told that trading with an expert has it own advantage, but I have no idea how to find one. T y for this
Notice how deceptive Daniel Hannan is with his choice of words. At 1:04 he frames one objection as "we can't compete with slave-wage economies"
By using the word "slave-wage," it seemed that he was preparing to address the strongest objection to free trade -- the objection to a consumer benefiting from slave labor by purchasing goods produced by slaves.
But, no. He refuses to address this objection.When it comes time to address the topic (at 2:56 in the video), he has decided to change the wording of the objection to "competing with lower wage economies". The word "slave" or "slave-labor" is gone. It is now "lower wage". No one making the abolitionist argument cares about whether one wage is merely "lower" than another wage. This is about slavery, remember?
He then argues that trading with lower wage economies "makes rich countries richer" and " lower wages let developing countries compete." With that irrelevant point, the distraction is complete. What happened to the word "slave" or "slave-wage"? He never intended to address it. I guess he was afraid to. Then, he has the gall to say he is concerned with human rights, and that people who object to free trade are only concerned with whether the labor was performed "in another country" ("You object to free trade because I live in a different country? That's no reason at all")
When we rejected slavery, capitalism blossomed, giving us the greatest economic boon in history. His other defenses of free trade are just fine. But, it turns out that knowing that someone else on the other side of the planet enslaves people, and then knowingly buying the product of slave labor, is cheaper than enslaving people yourself! What a bargain! And I still get to point to the 13th Amendment with pride!
Just hold your nose, make a lot more money, and call yourself an abolitionist, right?
As a free market kind of guy in principle, I will add that how much "richer" is a cultural that profits off slavery? On a moral level. Some cultures are less open or otherwise. Forcing free trade all societies destroys many wonderful cultures that exist. Free Trade SHOULD be about the freedom of you and me and handle out affairs. it shouldn't be the government dissolving local economies and cultures.
@Pangora2 I don't want any part of slavery, directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, I probably have purchased slave products unknowingly. I suppose we all need to be more careful what we buy, and not be so obsessed with price.
@@nothosaur indeed we as a people should have the ability to draw a line somewhere. Libertarians are for LIMITED government! We're not anrchists. If we can imports from slave wage countries I'm sure I can sleep on that easily enough
@Pangora2 I wonder if anybody has done a study to compare the cost of owning a slave in Mississippi in 1850 with the cost of paying a laborer trapped in communist China to make my t-shirt. I bet that if you adjust for inflation it would be more expensive to own the slave in 1850
@@nothosaur During American slavery, some owners said the northern factories were crueler, since they could get hurt, and the factory owner didn't have to supply medical food or housing. So in a way there is a case to be made modern wage slaves are cheaper than a fully supported slave. Even in America not all slaves worked the fields either, so they could be butlers or carriage drivers I suppose.
I have a feeling the results of the study would anger too many people no matter how it actually turns out
Complex matters need to be face with moderation and down to earth approach.
Each country has its economic and military vulnerabilities and ignoring it in favour of free trade can make those cheaper foreign products become very costly in the long run.
How about a little moderation? Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other? It's stupid & keeps people at each other's throats. Enough.
Only a little bit of freedom? Only a moderate amount of corruption, giving privileges to select friends and political benefactors?
First down vote to a PragerU video. That is a hopelessly naive idea. He speaks about opposition being due to our "psychology," but it's knowledge of human nature and knowing that most people serve & seek the interests of their in group once we extrapolate one degree beyond ourselves.
The issue with free trade.
Is that our government
Taxes our stuff into ground
Well done, Dan! A nice distillation of a complex subject. People will completely misunderstand every aspect of it with religious fervor but it's always worth the effort.
I absolutely agree.
It becomes unfair when countries you trade with have much lower wages and corporations are free to move manufacturing to those areas.
Since UA-cam deleted my reply about minimum wage being set by governments I had to add it here. The gov sets a minimum wage and then has no penalties for companies moving to places where there isn’t. I don’t blame the companies for doing so but it puts the country in a bad spot.
Sounds like a corporate problem
@@brownman304 no it is the governments who put minimum wages on corporations and small businesses. then allow the companies to flee to cheap labor.
The US labor laws add a lot of cost in addition to wages. Thats why you see some employers off higher wages via cash under the table. That's what the wage could be in America if not for government over regulation.
@@mountainmadman either the government provides benefits to Americans or companies do.
While I don't fundamentally disagree, we do need to balance the scales when other countries are putting tariffs and other barriers on our goods entering their markets. Also, it is wise to be as self-sufficient as possible. So, in a country like the USA we should be growing more of our own food, producing more of our own energy resources, etc. So, the government needs to stop regulating these industries out of operation making us reliant on other countries. That aside, I do believe that free global trade would be a good thing.
Finally, Prager bucking the Republicans. Well done. This is true and good.
I don't even think that White House videos get a ratio like this one - 93% dislikes wow
Free trade is what makes people rich, the more voluntary trade between the people, the better
You need to address bad actors that don't reciprocate, do violate human rights, and pose national security and interest threats
The non-aggression principle is all well and good until someone takes advantage of it
Libertarianism has never had an answer for subversion, a fatal conceit
If Gaza can get energy off its shores and sell it to israel, but then "subsidizes" the energy further so Israel is dependent on it, would this channel then realize that there could be an issue and simply getting something cheaper might have consequences?
Self-sufficiency is the best because the government can shut down your local store at a moment's notice.
Like Trump, I'm for fair and reciprocal trade
Free trade only in relation with countries that practice free trade; and never trade, free or otherwise, with countries that don't practice free trade this should be a constitutional amendment. This simple rule will in time grow all the free trade economies on any metric imaginable and at the same time weaken the economies of the non free trade countries.
Are we going to continue to do business with California with all their silly laws and restrictions? They should probably be at the top of your list of economies to avoid.
Comments be like:
Yeah I'm all for freedom
Except when I dont like it
I usually agree with Prager University, but I agree with many others here. Mr. Hannan’s view seem a little myopic. But more importantly, he seems to be biased… he is the president of the institute for free trade. His career and funding depend on making his point strong and loud.
The argumentation is way too shallow. Geopolitics have an huge impact on what can vs. what should be transferred overseas.
I think you should take the blinders off and see the world for what it really is. This isn't a eutopia.
We have many different political systems and many different individuals operating in those systems, all with their own ulterior motives and ambitions.
If you blindly have free trade, it is very possible that questionable nations may end up having control over critical industries.
This can lead to peculiar circumstances where, let's say... hypothetically.... sailors from different countries are arguing on the high seas, one rams the boat of the other, the offending party is arrested. All of a sudden, the country which made the arrest has no more access to rare earth minerals for critical industries.
But that could never happen, right? Cause...free trade?
Food for thought.
You are right. There is no perfect utopia. The US wouldn’t want to outsource the construction of nuclear missiles, for example. But the number of industries that need to be protected for self-defense or the like is a microscopic fraction of all trade. The clowns running for president want to put tariffs on everything under the sun. That is unjustifiable interference that needs to be questioned. That’s the point.
PRAGERU!!!!!
This is one of the very few Prager U videos that I don't agree with. The things I disagree with are too numerous to lay out here, so I'll just say the only thing I agreed with was lowering taxes and cutting regulations. Everything else was poorly supported or just ridiculous. Especially the North Korea reference.
That pill would never exist not because it was developed in another country but because there's an entire system built on keeping you sick. Your health is your responsibility.
You're just a rich sociopath.
Yeah I've seen the "benefits" of free trade over the past 30 years! As an auto worker and welder, I've seen my wages cut in half and more than 3 plant closures! But at least the investors and the CCP have made record profits, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
OTOH, I've worked in the tech industry which has grown spectacularly in the last 30 years. We have our share of layoffs (I got laid off in the most recent round at my previous employer) and plant closures. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if plant closing or corporate failures are more frequent in tech than cars.
Overall the US economy has grown by leaps and bounds for the last half century. Even our manufacturing output is close to the all time high, even though we use far fewer people than we used to to make all the stuff. And we make a lot of stuff which was science fiction 50 years ago.
When you subject your labor to competition from trading partners who do not play by the same set of rules as you, you subject your people to the effects of the other country's rules. If they suppress the value of labor through the suppression of free market forces, that would otherwise apply to the price of labor, you suppress the value of your people through "free trade." There's nothing free enterprise at all about that. If your want clean air clean water and apply costly regulations to domestic production to that end, but then have "free trade" with those not so encumbered, and if fact do far worse than you prior to regulations, all you do is lose jobs and worsened everything you claimed to care about. Not to mention by killing one industry you dump that labor into the rest of the market increasing the supply reducing the market value of labor in general.
So would you allow Hannon's magic pill in your country or not?
@@3sierra15 There is no information in the video that would lead me to ban it. If we had regulated or taxed an equivalent domestic version out of existence then I'd have a big problem letting it in, still might depending on circumstances such as fixing the domestic suppression.
By allowing a non-competitive industry to die off, you free up those workers and capital to do something that is better for them and the rest of the public. Preventing competition for various and sundry reasons only leaves us all eventually dirt poor. Should we have not developed a vaccine for polio because it would put the iron lung manufacturers out of business?
@@gregworrel2623 I have no problem with importing when there is a genuine competitive advantage. I hope nothing I wrote left any room for that. Most certainly technology advances can fit that. My problem is when we surrender our competitive advantage. Are you aware how our trading partners manipulate the VAT to subsidize exports and apply a tariff to imports, all skirting the GATT agreement strict definitions? I closed a US plant that had become the global model for operational excellence sending Americans to the unemployment line because we couldn't overcome how other countries manipulated the VAT. Its also far cheaper to sack Americans than Europeans. We are getting screwed and well over 90% of us are blissfully ignorant.
@@Janetsfear There is no "our" in competitive advantage. Countries don't trade. People do. It is to your advantage to buy products that represent the best value to you. Trying to consider the society-wide ramifications smacks of totalitarian planning whether it is attempted by an individual consumer or a politician. It is as doomed to failure as the USSR's 5 year plans. Your example of gamesmanship by European countries is just part of why government sucks. The last thing we should want is our own government imposing tariffs on US consumers because of what some government in Europe is doing.
Ok. Let's take the opposite approach. "Let's outsource ALL domestic food and medicine to countries whose laws we do not influence!" How does that sound.
It would just make food more expensive. Bad example
@@naisyjohns it would be more like a national security disaster
@@Rickety3263 no. no it wouldn't :)
@@naisyjohns If it does, we simply start growing food again.
This spokesman casts a good line, but his argument is foundationally porous. I'll wait, safely on higher ground, while he is swept away on stormy tides.
North Korea _cannot possibly_ produce enough food for its population, consistently. It's a matter of aerable land, climate, population, and lack of industrial supports for agriculture, as well as the policy of minimizing travel among the population; serfdom and minimal merchant and artisan classes are a classic pattern in Korea throughout its recorded history.
Free trade is every possible nightmare conceived to ruin mankind. _Fair_ trade makes both sides happy.
Government exists solely for the protection of its citizenry. Lack of good regulation _harms_ that citizenry as much as poorly-conceived and -implemented regulation; look at the creation of the Great Depression and the creation of the 2008 Mortgage Crisis, and their handling.
wow i am a fan of PragerU on most subjects but this vid was a real dud that does not coincide with other values on this channel, as well as many theory holes and contradictions. i love you guys but do better in the future.
What don't you like about freedom? You want the government to tell us what we can buy and from whom we can buy it?
@@gregworrel2623 either you are being sarcastic or you mis-understood my comment, it was not so much about the subject matter and more about the assumtions and leading statements in the video. i do not have anything against free trade if it is decided by the people and for the people, but the "free trade" espoused in this video is not that, for more context about why, just read some of the many other comments that have already done a better job than i would explaining.
Daniel Hannan was a member of the European Parliament for more than twenty years. He is now a member of the House of Lords. That is an impressive resume. Being a president of a think tank I never heard of doesn't make me think he is worth listening to. So please, do something about that, Prageru!
You don't like free trade? You like having the government tell you what you can buy and from whom you can buy it?
@@gregworrel2623 That was not my point. My point is that PragerU doesn't do a good job in introducing their speakers. An experienced politician is introduced as president of some unknown think-tank. A Harvard lecturer is introduced as the author of a book I never heard of. That could be done so much better.
That is my problem here. And as for free trade: I am not in the mood to discuss that topic right now.
@@CanalPSG Seems like a rather petty complaint. This video was recommended to me as being excellent on the issue of free trade.
@@gregworrel2623 Don't see it as a complaint. Just see it as a suggestion for improvement.
@@gregworrel2623 Ít was more of a suggestion than a complaint.
I know!🤚🏻 When you are competing with businesses run in countries that basically have slavelabour and/or manipulate their currency we, the workers, are the ones that will pay.
100% facts. China does not play by Free Trade rules and never will. China does not play by WTO rules even though they were allowed to join WTO. When everyone plays by the rules but China doesn't, it is not fair to all other countries. China has no Free Trade, therefore the world cannot have free trade because of China.
The case for free trade is based on the theory of comparative advantage. The theory assumes among other things that labour and capital are mobile within countries but not between them.
A followup video should also be the "Externalities" video this channel did many, many years ago. All these trades, free or otherwise have countless externalities that need to be weighed. These range from enviornmental, and economic, down to the free markets downright liquidating cultures that oppose it.
Can't imagine if ALL the countries that we have undermined over the decades refused to trade with us!
No trade is about giving countries to seldom what they need New products for definition only stuff the country's need.
Excellent video!! Thanks PragerU
Thank you.
free market>
Internal regulations and subsidies. (Thanks for asking.)
The thing with free trade is that you must also invest in progress. We can't trade for cheaper things elsewhere if we are not to replace the lost production with something better. And that is the problem in our country. We either believe in diversity (which has nothing to do with production) or believe in conservation (which would be against changes). What makes free trade amazing is that it is beneficial to both parties. And that just simply hasn't been true much of the time when nations trade.
It would be true if “people” traded. “Nations” are represented by ignorant, self-interested, meddlers.
There are some good points in this video, and overall it's true that free trade had benefited the world.
But there is a lot more to this issue. It oversimplifies the topic
I agree with this although we should have regulation of chemicals put on food and stuff like that as in we shouldn’t be using any
Great work Daniel! Scooby snacks for you.
Praying for Israel.
My allegiance is to Liberty and the Republic.
Free trade works when there is trade in both directions (money does not count).
Almost perfect. But countries can externalize costs too. Cartels, fixed exchange rates, money emission mixed with loans, political sabotage, etc. Well, nothing of these are free market.
This video assumes that advancements in technology lifting people out of poverty are due to "free trade." Advancements in technology are more correlated with governments that prioritize freedom in the common good sense, than it is with "free trade." The United States pursuing protectionists policies would, therefore have a very different outcome than other countries such as China or North Korea.
Start with repealing the "Jones Act "
What if other countries don't play fair? What if other countries have governments that cooperate with their industry to target US industries and put them out of business?
When China subsidizes their steel makers, that will put US steel makers out of business. Once we lose that market, it is extremely difficult to get it back again.
This would be somewhat true, if we didn't have a fiat currency system.
Loads of logical fallacies that I can't even count.
The short answer is EVERYTHING.
Free trade is the worst. There is always a victim in free trade. There is always a victim, someone who loses and loses big, whose nations gets pillaged from all it is worth and left destitute. And who that is changes. For instance the US used to benefit, but the moment it started offshoring it became a victim of its own policy, which is why there is now so much poverty in the US.
If anybody's taken a macroecon class and understands even remotely what comparative advantage is, then you know that free trade benefits all, regardless of how much you get. Not having trade hurts the consumer, so either the political agenda of the government comes first or the consumer does.
@xryphon Because of China, there is no free trade in the world. Because China plays by different rules. China does Not play by free trade rules. China pours $$$Trillions into their own industries/companies so that other countries who follow "free trade" rules lose. China spends zero on their own citizens & puts all the money into subsidized domestic manufacturing so that their exports cost pennies & put other companies out of business. China also has increasingly been not allowing Western companies to even sell in China. Also China has "won" by stealing all Intellectual IP from Western companies. For the past 40 years. They do not create/innovate. They steal.
Therefore, yes, since China does Not have Free Trade, you can have Free Trade with all countries that play by the rules.
That is a good way to think of it: either the political agenda of the nation, as expressed by the nation’s elected rulers, or the direct material benefit of “consumers” that comes first. Are we citizens first, or simply economic automatons whose sole objective is maximizing consumption and money? Any argument against free trade would have to be rooted in our inescapably political, social nature. I’m no socialist or Communist, but the reality of the world is not quite as simplistic as presented in this video.
The problem with free trade is it only works when both sides are playing by the same rules.
Pay is artificially kept down by the government in the other countries. You are NOT improving their lives like this video portrayed.
What you are doing is removing the possibility of lower skilled jobs in the U.S. to be competitive.
This is the equivalent of telling a tool-and-die worker to “learn to code”.
@@rebchizelbeak5392 We see the short - term effects of structural unemployment but in the long - run some of those individuals get better, more productive jobs. I think that most people can say that they are better off now than during the Great Recession, whether that be because they were forced to enter a new sector of the economy that eventually grew (i.e. mobile food) or gained new skills that allowed them to earn more money. It's a matter of short - term harm vs. long - term help.
Comparing food or arms to the only pill that makes you live forever is being disingenuous.
Yeah no
“We” didn’t “evolve” at all.
Nice video ❤❤❤❤️🥰🥰
While I AM for free trade in general theory, Free Trade is like nature, a free market. However it is an Amoral system. There's no moral background to it, so all cultures wind up dissolving on multiple levels. What you choose to do, and not do, is your character as a person and a culture.
The Utopian aspect also assumes there are no bad actors, as the US has shown with the financial system. In general you can theorize a global reserve currency made everything easier and better - and it got weaponized.
If China subsidizes all its Steel and the US produces no steel, if conflict with China increases and we need Steel - congratulations, no one even remains who knows how to built a plant, nevermind source material.
We should strive to free trade where and when its nice, but the list of reasons for why not doing so is endless.
Remember, freely trading the labor of women has resulting in needing two incomes to do the job of one, women freely entering the market and all. Countries that do this will eventually wipe themselves out.
Nice video❤️❤️❤️🥰🥰
The problem with this video is it refuses to acknowledge that you can't let your nation get too dependent on other nations when it comes to things like food productions. It's not a matter that we don't see the benefit with trading overall in seeking better quality of life for everyone. It's just you can't be so naive to basically export all of you essential needs elsewhere when lets be honest the money situation is no longer making much sense. The DNA argument is ridiculous there are plenty of people during winter time just act like the convenience will always be there no matter what.
Yes lower taxes and regulations that's awesome talk more about that to make us competitive. The North Korea argument is just more of an example of bad government running everything while extremely isolated.
All he says is true to a certain extent, but the authors proposition is the utopian solution, the 'discount the dark side of human nature' ideal. Given the tendency of man and nations to covet their neighbors stuff, the best we can hope for is a "trade-off" as Thomas Sowell has said. A trade-off that will never measure up to the ideal, but one that will at best prevent repeating the horrors of the first half of the 20th century. Kind of like the times we live in since the end of WWII.
Why would anyone confuse "free" with "fair"? These are different terms for a reason. He's describing comparative advantage, but he's only knocking down the DUMB arguments the economically illiterate make. Protectionism is a dumb idea in a market system wherein all parties are playing by the same rules.
Prager U is Conservative Inc. It's like a guy from the Chamber of Commerce wrote this episode.
Yeah free trade is conservative.
Almost exactly the opposite. Corporates hate free trade. They're the ones who push for the distortions and privileges.
I don't get it.
The profits from the iPhone returning here are only a small fraction of the "profit" gained from making and selling an iPhone. Most of the real profits (jobs, taxes, money reinvested in technology) stay in China. Also, your argument presupposes that companies and factories can be owned by owners living in other countries... that isn't true in China. Fifty percent of the iPhone factory (per Chinese law) is owned by the Chinese. Also you assume with subsides that labor and factories are "flexible"... i.e. that they can reduce making a product that an overseas competitor is subsidizing, and then start making it again easily when the subsides decline/foreign wages rise... but that just isn't true. Once the factories close, money isn't put into improving them, and the people are fired... restarting production is prohibitive. Unfortunately these penalties outweigh the benefits for nearly all industries and countries we trade with... except for one... food growth. I agree that food imports and exports should be tariffed much less, if at all. Thanks.
Trade not Aid
Why do the thumbnail shows Taiwan as part of China?
I will continue to produce my own food, assume responsibility for every facet of my life and position myself to rely on no one, especially government both foriegn and domestic.
I do not agree with the messaging of this video.
I guess as long as they don't cut you off, all this is well and good. What happens when you can't get certain medicines from India anymore?? As long as the world is stable, it might work... but this world is increasingly unstable.
PS For once (and this is a rarity) I disagree with about 80% of the content in this video. Numerous people above and below have commented their own objections, all of which concur with my own criticisms. Free trade with North Korea, China and Iran is not 'free' - it costs us dearly, i.e. Tik Tok anyone?
Steel is a terrible anecdote, Chinese steel is truly crap! What if China had indeed kept all the medications it produced and did not export them during Covid? There are some industries that are essential and need to me American made or Indian made or Korean made for the good of that country. Your drive to have cheap junk from overseas is not a panacea, it promotes sub quality product.
Israel should open up its defense markets and let the Arab countries, including the West Bank, freely, and generously use their surplus young men to defend Israel. If these young men are subsidized to do so by their home countries, all the better. Israel can have an army on the cheap! Arabs have employment, Everyone wins.
(I push this example far to show that reality can interfere with Utopia, though I generally agree free trade is better the closer to the individual it gets. It becomes less suitable the higher up you go)
Trying to entirely eliminate self-sufficiency is how we will end up eating bugs by 2030.
Yeah… I’m just not a big fan of slave labor…
This was bad, *really* bad. I'd like to focus on the 'protectionism' point, specifically when he talks about 'encouraging competition' with adversarial powers in our global economy.
Here's the problem: *we can't.* We. Can't. Compete. The level of self-destructive and amoral rapid industrialization that manufacturing powerhouses like China have undergone would *DECIMATE* our country's ecology and *exploit* our country's working man to a degree I don't think PragerU quite fathoms.
OSHA and the EPA could not exist in their current forms, nor could even loose safety standards be enforced, that's a given. We could not have safe workers to compete with China's near total lack of safety and disregard for ecological damage. We couldn't have child labor laws, none at all; our workers need to start young and early, to even begin competing. We couldn't have quality products, law, or copyright protections honored fairly; China's cutthroat market relies on undercutting other countries by stealing their IP and flooding foreign markets with cheap, low quality consumer goods. We would have to enforce an equally cutthroat Machiavellian market wherein IP is not protected, fair application of the law does not exist, and industries of interest to the state are given a blind eye by prosecutors and state officials to do as they please -- so long as they serve the national interest. Anything less simply can't compete; it can't BEGIN to compete.
So to 'compete' with China's industry, we would have to destroy our country as China destroys theirs. Even the most corrupt protectionist politician, at MINIMUM, is still protecting our country's ecology and quality of life, so I would much rather put my faith in the pocket of a wildly corrupt protectionist than anyone who wants to emulate China's industry practices. We should not be trying to compete; we should not be trying to DRAG ourselves to the *lows* that our adversaries will stoop to in the pursuit of industrial efficiency. We are a country of principles, and *protecting* those principles back home, and safeguarding our *future,* should always take precedent over competition..
Or we may find ourselves in a pollution-ridden slum, missing fingers and waiting for our child to bring bread money home from the factory, asking ourselves 'why are we even competing? what's the point?.. Is this the country we want to work to build?.."
The downvotes prove almost nobody is buying his rhetoric. ( At this time 830 up 7700 down)
I HAVE ONLY TWO WORDS........BULL CHIT......
I just can't get over supporting child and slave labor markets, though, much less Communism.
Wonderful video! Thanks so much! :)
Well China taxes car imports at 100%. why should US have 0 taxes on Chinese cars?
Because. Those. Chinese. Tariffs. Mainly. Hurt. China.
Yet GM sold 2.1 million vehicles in China in 2023. How many Chinese cars are sold in the U.S.? The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on all imported pickups since 1964. That is a huge tax on every small business that uses pickups and every individual that drives a pickup truck.
@@gregworrel2623 Those 2.1 million cars are made in China with a Chinese company as the major stake holder. And those sales are falling fast. BYD is the largest car maker in China. it used to be VW and GM not so long ago
Lmao the comment section is hilarious, people calling out neo-liberalism as supporting communism😂 Reagan would be proud
People are lazy, they don't want to compete or adapt to change.
One problem: When a massively super-manufacturing country places tariffs and penalties on your goods going to them, you need to "equalize" the play field with similar. ALSO: The U.S. needs to figure a way of revitalizing production here at home [Translation: Back the F off, government!]. There are tens of thousands of completed U.S.-built vehicles that have been sitting idle (exposed to weather) for over TWO years because they cannot be shipped/sold until computer chips for them arrive (from China). I've a stereo at a shop for minor service which will be at least two months because if a part is needed, it comes from China: the part sits in Tennessee until customs clears it (OR the part arrives and then mysteriously vanishes which departments of commerce, transportation (shipping), customs, and criminal investigation must not be too concerned about). Trade to receive foreign produced products, parts, chips, etc is fine, offering a cheaper option: BUT we also NEED the option of having "local" production, even if these will cost a little more for not being out of a communist sweat shop.
The real solution is better public transport and walkable neighbourhoods. Car dependence is killing us.
@@crowmob-yo6ry Huge disagree. Others as well but I personally can only walk about 1/2 a block without resting. The "15 Minute City" utopia proposed by some mandates ordering for delivery to your home (or there is NO way "everything you need is within a 15 minute walk" is feasible). This necessitates additional delivery costs to the recipient [plus possible weather damage to delivered product, porch pirates], and additional "online" complications. *I* want to go to a locally owned - not mega-conglomerate - and see and handle what I'm going to buy to avoid the idiot mispicks and other errors, costing more time effort and money. It a fun idea for a fantasy fiction but "15 minute cities" is merely a tool to further erode liberty, particular when the stated plans *restrict* you to a small area without particular permission received in advance.
@@dennisanderson3895 please educate yourself by watching the channel Oh the Urbanity! They made a great video debunking the 15min city conspiracy theories.
Jesus Christ died for our Sins according to the scriptures and that he was Buried and he rose Again the third day praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you All
👍🏻😎🇺🇸
Based video. Seething protectionists in the comments probably don't even know what comparative advantage is
Thank you.