Now-President Donald Trump has been doing the same – for decades.
Washington, D.C.’s definition of “free trade” – is anything but.
DC has for decades allowed into America virtually unfettered – virtually any product from any country on the planet.
Ok – that’s actually free trade.
But DC has for decades allowed virtually every other nation – to emplace all sorts of taxes and restrictions upon our products.
That ain’t free trade.
DC has for decades also allowed virtually every other nation to subsidize their products. Which – when these products enter the global market – have a decidedly unfair advantage over competing products. Like, say, our products.
That ain’t free trade either.
So when Trump starts the very long, very intricate process of undoing this half-century nightmare mess – the panoply of anti- and Never Trumpers suddenly discover the phrase “Trade War.” And as one blame Trump for initiating one.
News flash, Geniuses:
Gordon Chang: China Trade War Has Been Happening for Decades: “People say [Trump] would start a trade war. Well, no matter what The Donald does he can’t start a trade war because we’re already in a trade war with China. But only they are waging it. The question is how do we end it on terms not only advantageous to the United States but also to the international community.”
And it ain’t just China: “Ah yes, the media Shibboleth ‘Trump wants to start trade wars.’ Umm…we’re already in several. They’re just one-sided – other nations waging war on us, while we blithely pretend they’re not, and blindly skip forward waving around the latest ‘free trade’ deal.”
How very Neville Chamberlain we’ve been. We’ve been appeasing…every other nation on the planet. For decades. While they’ve been invading our nation, killing millions of jobs and stealing millions more. For decades.
As the media looks for every conceivable angle to attack Trump for engaging in his cleanup on Aisle Trade – we get this bit of nonsense from Reuters.
U.S.-China Trade War Could Hit Brazil in the Long Run: “Brazil’s agriculture minister Blairo Maggi fears the higher demand for soybeans will push local prices so much that it will hamper Brazil’s competitiveness and eventually dent its market shares.
“‘I am very concerned. In the short term Brazil is gaining a lot, it’s true,’ Maggi told Reuters in an interview in Paris.
“‘But in the medium term and in the long term it can be a problem because nearly everything we export, be it poultry or pork, rely on soy for food,’ he said….
“‘And if soybean rises in Brazil that means it is less expensive comparatively in the United States and since they are also poultry and pork producers, they will be more competitive and it will penalize us,” Maggi said.”
Reuters reports this – as if it is a shot at Trump. Because they don’t know what a scam “free trade” has been – and what a scammer Brazil specifically has been.
Anyone who actually knows anything about global trade – knows Brazil’s sugar market domination. And guess how Brazil achieved said domination:
“Brazil’s government gives Brazil’s sugar industry roughly $4-billion-per-year in direct and indirect subsidies.
“Which – when Brazil’s sugar goes global – cripples the international marketplace, to Brazil’s obvious advantage.
“More than 100 nations export sugar. Brazil controls almost half of the entire global market – because they have that $4-billion-government-cronyism head start.”
So cry me an Amazon, Brasilia.
I’m not exactly moved to tears about Brazil’s prospective medium-and-long-term problem on soy – when Brazil has been royally souring the global sugar market for decades.
We’re more than happy to not – finally, at last – engage in the trade wars that have been waged against us for decades.
We’re only threatening said engagement – to elicit ends to the trade wars that have been waged against us for decades.
Including by $4-billion-per-year-in-sugar-subsidies Brazil.
So here’s a thought, Brazil:
You want less government in trade between China and the US?
Get rid of a bunch of your government in trade.
Presto: Problems solved – all the world over.
This first appeared in Red State.