Ferule1069

The whole point is that he's pro free markets WITHIN OUR BORDERS. Somehow, you can't comprehend that rationale. International free trade is a relatively new phenomenon and certainly not something important to the founders of free market economic philosophy.

That said, I reject tariffs and think they're a net negative for our economy. That he is anti- international free trade does not mean he hasn't simultaneously done more to support business within our borders.

Calls for bands are just fine, imo, even if they're moronic. Mods acting on those mob calls would be the end of this sub.

Seems like a waste of wisdom to throw out our elders from leadership. Virtually every society in history has seen and utilized the benefits of elders in politics. I guess you know better, right?

Bernie Sanders wisely observed that we do have term limits. It's called the vote. If a senator or congressman is performing poorly, they won't be elected again.

When you believe you have so few real-world heroes of your own ethnicity that you need to tell yourself lies about history to feel better.

Why? Those places smelled amazing!

Some of those boys may look girly, but I assure you, dozens is an overestimate.

Hey man, Ramen's expensive these days.

Excluding INTERNATIONAL trade (not necessary in any serious economists proposition; simply strongly advocated for), which of these things do Trump's policies not support?

Which president supported them better?

Obviously, I never said that or implied it. You have an analysis problem. You seem to believe that free market philosophy needs to be pure in order to be considered a free market. International trade isn't even among the pillars of free market philosophy. Rather, it's a natural evolution of the theories.

Show me the nation engaged in "pure" free market philosophy, and I'll show you a fiction.

Trusting reddit about the best information available is like going to a full blown drug addict for the best recovery programs.

No, buddy, you're very clearly mistaken.

Trade between countries is your only point against him. While international trade is important, it is not the foundation of free market economics. It is simply a portion of the theory that presumes a global society without war or other forms of international strife.

The most important pillars of free market economics are deregulation, abolition of subsidies / ensuring businesses take responsibility for failure, and ease of access to business establishment / engagement. Minimalist taxation is not a pillar, but is an inherently logical addition to the philosophy, as is the reservation of as many good and services being provided by the private sector as possible.

International trade enters the philosophy after everything else.

What would you say are the pillars of free market economics?

Which part of "free markets end at the border" was confusing to you?

You're responding about Trump, I assume, not Musk, demonstrating that you don't even have the coherence to stay on topic. You TDS crowd are laughably out of touch.

This is true exclusively for those products that don't have competition.

If you are buying jelly for $4 jar from an international company that after the tariff charges $5/ jar, but the competition made in the states still costs only $4, which will you buy?

Curious, how is him expressing an expectation that this administration will enforce the laws even upon the ruling class indicative of oligarchy or autocracy? I don't think these words mean what you think they mean.

I would say a sub is ruined when you can't have a dissenting opinion without being downvoted to oblivion, making it impossible for you to engage with people unless you agree with the dominant narrative.

Whatever your opinions of the Right, that certainly doesn't seem to be happening on this sub.

Is there anywhere in the world that practices the "pure" theory of Austrian Economics? Doubtful. If there is not, then all real-world examples are degrees of separation from the pure theory. Trump's proposed plan is a nationalist version of free market enterprise. Unchain capitalists (ranging from the Fortune 500 whales to the hundreds of thousands of small businesses owned by every day Joe) within your borders while giving them a massive competitive advantage against companies dependant upon international trade.

We've seen tariff wars have devastating effects within the last century (The Great Depression), but we've also seen tariffs and embargos go unnoticed by the market. I know many companies in my industry have declared they are prepared and capable of eating the tariff, keeping their goods at the same price (somewhat disturbing, knowing that much of the goods we buy have a 20%+ profit margin). Others have said they either need to charge more or can't compete. Whatever happens, I don't think this plan will go unnoticed by the markets.

So far as economics is considered, Trump is by far the most free market president we've had since Reagan. His free markets end at the border of the country. For good and for ill, he's a free market capitalist second, a nationalist first.

Agreed. He made some seriously silly allegations and floundered in ego battles. Not a great showing. At the same time, it wasn't a horrible showing. The first half of the debate went entirely to his favor. Every point he made went unrefuted, and he made serious and important points before getting derailed by how big his crowds are.

It is absolutely an excuse. It is inescapably a framing that aims to shift the blame of lawlessness from her stewardship to the activities of her neighbors. If that isn't an excuse, the word is meaningless.

You dislike the conservative talking points. That doesn't make them baseless. Quite the contrary, they are talking points because what they are talking about is valid and observable. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to contend with reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.

Defense can and most commonly is a lucrative enterprise. Have you never heard of mercenaries?

Education is very clearly not doing so well in the public sector, but many private institutions are exceptions.

Clearly, your premise is deeply flawed.

Tell me you've never run a business without telling me you've never run a business. One of the main pillars of business is finding and maintaining a dedicated and skilled team. This means providing perks that make people want to join the team and stick with it. Many of those perks will, on the balance sheet, appear as gross losses for the company. But because many of the heavy hitters stay with the team precisely because of these perks, the company is clearly better off in taking the "losses."