download

Paul Ryan And His Multinationals Vs The Trump Train

in Culture/Economics/Politics by
   

Do you think that China’s currency manipulation is so inconsequential that we should continue the Bush and the Obama “no stick” replies to their repeated currency provocations?

I understand that getting tough with China is not good news for USA retailers that make millions off of selling artificially cheap Chinese knockoffs. Nevertheless, for people like myself who put the well-being of the nation as a whole above the profit margins of multinational corporations, the loss of millions of American jobs outweighs the profit margins for corporations that have no particular loyalty to our own nation.

Paul Ryan thinks of America as an “idea.” For Paul Ryan, “America” is as much the entrepreneur in China taking advantage of his government’s currency manipulation as it is the entrepreneur in Detroit taking advantage of whatever benefit he may get from being in the USA. For Paul Ryan, the USA should do nothing that might restrict the flow of labor and of commerce because restricting the economy anywhere is restricting “the Idea of America,” even if that means we who actually live in the USA should suffer from the unfair practices of other nations that, unlike Paul Ryan’s “America,” look out for themselves first and foremost. Bush, Clinton, Goldman Sachs, the WSJ are all “Paul Ryans” when they insist on a “no stick” response to manipulators like China, lest God forbid we wield a “stick” that subtracts from the profit margins of a multinational.

By contrast, we on the Trump Train (Choo Choo) actually think of America as a “nation.” We want a leader that cares about our national bottom line, not just Goldman Sachs’ or GE’s bottom line. No one in their right mind wants Smoot-Hawley. We just want China to float their currency and are willing to impose pain on them as needed to get them to back down.

If we are willing to go to war over Chinese provocation in the South China Sea, then by what logic should we continue to do nothing serious about Chinese provocation in trade? Unless of course we put the profit margins of multinationals above our own national interest.

Michael Sean Erickson is a political consultant, film producer, an essayist, an Anglican Catholic Priest, a stage actor, and a husband, He is also the author of The Lost Sombrero, Beautiful Catrina, and Dream Time. Originally from San Jose, California, he had lived in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, before moving more recently to Los Angeles with his beautiful wife, Sharon, and their Shih Tzu, Shansi.

  • Zigman

    It is amazing the protectionism is back in vogue. First let me say that I do not support our so call trade agreements because in fact they are not about free trade but to they are to regulate the trade, I call them trade regulation agreements. However, Protectionism boils down to Government protections for select inefficient business at the cost of lowering the standard of living for the general public by increase in consumer good prices.

    When the author states “Nevertheless, for people like myself who put the well-being of the nation as a whole above the profit margins of multinational corporations, the loss of millions of American jobs outweighs the profit margins for corporations that have no particular loyalty to our own nation.” What he is really saying is that he is willing to lower the standard of live of most of the US population by raising prices on consumer goods in favor of protecting a select few ineffective businesses. Real conservatives would call that crony capitalism.

    When the author states “even if that means we who actually live in the USA should suffer from the unfair practices of other nations that,” What the author is really saying is that the US put high taxes and inefficient regulation on our businesses and because he does not believe we can change that, he is calling other counties that have lower taxes and regulation to be unfair.

    When the author states “By contrast, we on the Trump Train (Choo Choo) actually think of America as a “nation.” We want a leader that cares about our national bottom line, not just Goldman Sachs’ or GE’s bottom line.” What he is really saying is that if we tell people it is all a foreigner’s fault, they will vote for an unethical nationalist. When we should be looking at why our businesses are not competitive (high taxes and inefficient regulations) and not blame other people for things we actually control.

    Here is the scary part, “If we are willing to go to war over Chinese provocation in the South China Sea, then by what logic should we continue to do nothing serious about Chinese provocation in trade?” Who is talking about going to war with China over empty sea, on the other side of the world? This is the kind of Neocon craziness that has caused the instability in the middle east. Let me point out that China has nukes and going to war with them could be the end of the world! This reminds me a saying “When goods don’t cross borders, Soldiers will”. In this case it could be much worse than just solders.

Latest from Culture

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox. 

Send this to friend