Donald Trump is a wealthy, successful business man who will save the American dream for future generations. This is the thought process of those who would destroy us. While Donald Trump certainly possesses good business sense and the ability to capitalize on opportunity, what he lacks is any ability to apply those talents to the task of saving a burning nation. It is sometimes said that the greatest enemy of capitalism are capitalists; what is meant by this is simply that any self-interested businessman will always find advantages in eliminating his competition by government intervention. Victory through legislation is much easier than victory through efficiency. Fervent cries from the supposed injured persons are exuded to those occupying capital hill; cries of unfairness and injustice resound until protectionism is universally accepted as the only possible mechanism through which a level playing field might be re-established. Many who run for president do so because of the subjective gains they procure from serving a cause larger than themselves. Some who run do so in order to serve only themselves. What would a Trump presidency mean for America? Mr. Trump's own words betray his own visions of such an occurrence.
Mr. Trump is known to many for his popular television program, for the many hair jokes which surround him, and, most recently, for his stance on trade relations with China. Mr. Trump's economic policy with respect to China would be to levy a 25% tariff on all Chinese goods imported into the US. Surely, Mr. Trump defends his position with references to how cheap Chinese goods are harmful to American labor and how such tariffs would save America's manufacturing sector. These defenses not withstanding, Trump economic policy, if executed in such a manner, would not only fail to secure these goals but would in fact ensure the very opposite effects. Jobs would be lost, the manufacturing sector would not necessarily increase in prominence, and American standards of living would decrease dramatically in particular for the poorest of our society.
Mr. Trumps' fallacy stems primarily from his lack of understanding of the principle of gains from trade. Trade is, despite the propaganda of the left, in fact positive sum and not zero sum. A zero sum exchange is an exchange where there is a winner and a loser; it's an instance where one party profits at the other party's expense. However, it is necessary to understand that if this were the case, then no trades would ever voluntarily occur as no person would be willing to be compliant in losing from the exchange. Fortunately, the positive sum nature of trade wins out. If an economic actor wishes to purchase a burger from McDonald's, he willingly gives up a sum of his money in exchange for a burger that is freely given to him by McDonald's. The actor wanted the food more than his money, the restaurant wanted the money more than the burger, and ultimately both have gained because the trade was allowed to take place. The trade, essentially, has created value for both parties that did not exist before, resulting in both parties profiting from the action of trading. That which is true for individuals is true with respect to nations in this instance. Because China is able to produce some goods more cheaply than we can, to refuse to trade with them for those goods would be to deny ourselves an increase in living standards are larger amounts of personal wealth.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2010 the United States imported a total of $1,912,047,000,000 worth of goods from all trading partners. (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html#2010) Census Bureau reports further state that US trade with China in 2010 has resulted in $364,943,800,000 worth of imported goods. (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2010) In percentage terms, Chinese goods comprised 19% of all US imports in the 2010. The essential question with respect to a Trump candidacy is whether or not the average American household can afford to pay 25% more for 19% of the goods it consumes when unemployment still hovers in the 9 to 10% range. Can the US consumer really shoulder the burden of closing our doors to our trading partner? Such an action would undoubtedly cause sever job losses in many industries due to the fact that increased prices for certain goods leave less disposable income for expenditure on other goods. The opportunity cost to refusing Chinese goods is staggering. Everything from household electronics to heavy machinery would increase in price as a direct consequence of placing tariffs on China. Tariffs levied against our partners will not protect US consumers or workers in any way; instead, they will leave consumer's with diminished purchasing power and stunt American producer's ability to grow.
Mr. Trump, as a businessman, does not have an interest in paying more for goods. However, Mr. Trump would not be concerned about having to buy more expensive goods if he were able to expand his business simultaneously by way of eliminating his competition. Recently, because of deflating real estate prices in the US, Chinese buyers have increased their consumption of American land. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29162036/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/) Where such purchases are made, the possibility of re-sale upon the rebound of the market is always present. Donald Trump, being as heavily involved in real estate as he is, must inevitably bid against the Chinese investors in order to make land investments of his own. However, if Mr. Trump were able to limit the purchase of Chinese goods in America, the cash flow to the Chinese would be curtailed which would cause the availability of investment capital in that nation to dwindle. Ultimately, such a chain of events can only benefit Mr. Trump as he endeavors to take advantage of the bear market in hopes of higher returns later on. There is no better way to ensure this outcome than to become the leader of the United States; Mr. Trump is like everyone in that he only seeks to better his position, but he is unlike everyone in that there is a real possibility of him holding the highest office in the free world. Therefore, his purpose in holding that seat is relevant to America's future.
Given the harmful effects of his economic policy and the dubious nature of his interest in running, it is my conclusion that Donald Trump is exactly the opposite of what the Republican party needs in order to achieve victory in 2012. Principled conservatism is the only way by which Obama's mistakes might be erased; Mr. Trump has not shown himself to be this man. His protectionist tendencies would only serve to weaken our already fragile economy and his blatant disregard for statesmanship can only be described as ruinous. It is still yet too early to know who our candidate will be, but it is late enough to declare Donald Trump's supposed candidacy an unmitigated disaster.
