# Why is Trump's anti-ally protectionism so popular? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889 "2018-06-11T16:07:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/61 "2018-06-13T00:53:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes, they clearly were. Reagan was excellent rhetorically. In practice, he was as bad as the worst boogeyman a free-marketeer could conjure. Protectionism ruled according to his own advisors. You may as well be quoting from an Ayn Rand novel. His words were pure fiction from a trained actor’s mouth. So your claim is that you’re right and the journalists who prepared the Reagan documentary are wrong. But as noted below, it’s not just me and a few journalists who disagree with you, it’s a wide array of experts who’ve examined Reagan’s track record on trade. In case it’s not obvious, I have no interest in defending Reagan, but I do have an interest in defending the facts. > [@Kobal2](#): > > There’s an old joke that goes : two politicians are debating, one says “You’re lying about this !” and the other replies “Yes, I know, but hear me out !” > Who the fuck cares about what Reagan \*said \*? What he and his administration \*\*did \*\*is what matters. True enough, though one might wonder why he would make such strong and unequivocal statements in support of free trade if he was against it. [Politifact looked into this question](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/01/donald-trump-cites-ronald-reagan-protectionist-her/) after Trump falsely claimed that Reagan had been a protectionist, and to do so they enlisted the aid of some half dozen experts including a Reagan biographer, a professor of international trade politics, a former Reagan White House official, and others. Their conclusion was that Reagan was on balance very much a free trader both in word and in deed, that is, both in his articulated ideology and in the general trend of trade policies in his administration. The caveat is that he would not hesitate to implement a protectionist policy if US interest were at stake, so those arguing that side can find evidence of protectionism, but it was a pretty minor part of his trade policies compared to things like the North American Free Trade Agreement, laying the groundwork for the World Trade Organization, implementing the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and vetoing bills for quotas on textile and clothing imports despite public pressure to do otherwise. A few quotes from the article: “Reagan was essentially a free trader, in large part because he saw trade as a means of winning the Cold War,” [Craig Shirley, a Reagan biographer] said. … [The Reagan] administration launched the most comprehensive set of global trade-barrier-reducing negotiations yet completed — the Uruguay Round, which eventually established the World Trade Organization," said I.M. Destler, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland and author of the book _American Trade Politics_. (That negotiation continued under President George H.W. Bush and was concluded and ratified, with large bipartisan margins, under President Bill Clinton.) In addition, the Reagan administration won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988, which later incorporated Mexico and morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement. … Reagan also bucked public pressure by rejecting trade protection for the domestic shoe industry in 1985 and by vetoing bills in 1985 and 1988 that would have imposed restrictive quotas on U.S. textile and apparel imports. The free-market Cato Institute noted upon Reagan’s death in 2004 that U.S. spending on imports roughly doubled between his election in 1980 and the end of his tenure in 1988. “If Reagan was a ‘protectionist,’ it had no discernible effect on the ability of Americans to spend freely in the global marketplace,” according to the Cato paper. … After reviewing data from Reagan’s tenure, Destler has written that the impacts of Reagan’s protectionist policies were “marginal,” with the possible exception of the voluntary export restraints on Japanese cars. “On balance, Reagan was a free-trader,” Destler told PolitiFact. > **[Trump cites Reagan as a protectionist hero. Was he?](https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jul/01/donald-trump-cites-ronald-reagan-protectionist-her/)** > > Republicans have long cited President Ronald Reagan as a hero of conservatism. But in a June 28 speech in Monessen, Pa., ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/62 "2018-06-13T01:01:50Z")
Here’s the perspective of an American, born on the East Coast, but who has spent a great deal of time in Canada, both Francophone and Anglophone; has been to Europe; generally prefers the traditions of European and Canadian cultures to what currently exists of “American culture”, and did _not_ vote for Donald Trump, but has been keenly observing the political situation go down over the past year: From the perspective of an uninformed layman on international relations (me), what the “world stage” looks like at the moment basically amounts to America, China, Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and to a lesser degree India, Mexico, and Canada. From my layman’s perspective which I am ADMITTING HERE is informed more by intuition and personal insight rather than factual research - from this perspective, I guess it boils down to, Germany and France and the UK seem like has-beens. They seem like the old geezers who reminisce about their glory days. The only thing that even comes to mind when I ask myself “what do I remember happening on the news in France, Germany, and the UK in the past few years”, is a rash of terrorism incidents; political instability (Brexit); and…that’s it, basically. Let me reiterate that I’m not saying these countries _aren’t_ important, they just don’t _seem_ important to me. If someone asked me “who are the major movers and shakers in the world right now”, my answer is the US, Russia, and China. Europe just doesn’t seem relevant anymore. Canada is still of significant importance because of its size and because it’s the other major power of the North American continent. Tabarnak de caaaalllliiiiisssse. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/63 "2018-06-13T01:15:20Z")
Can can understand Republicans and Libritarians salivating at the chance to stick it to those snooty socialists lording over us with their universal healthcare and lo gun-crime rates. The thing that I can’t understand is why there isn’t more of a reaction from investors. One would think that Trumps taking on the rest of the free world in a trade war all at once, and doing it in a way that is guaranteed to hurt us more than them would cause investors to take a step back, but there hasn’t been a blip in the markets since Trump decided to take his ball and go home from the G6+1. Do they think that someone will take Trump aside and explain to him that if you don’t trade with anyone and no one trades with you that’s called a sanction and is generally viewed as a bad thing to happen to your country, rather than a way to make it great again? Or have they drunk too much Republican kool-aid to the point that they somehow think that the Europeans will fold against Trumps bulling so that he will prove himself to be the master negotiator he always claimed? ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/64 "2018-06-13T01:49:27Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > One would think that Trumps taking on the rest of the free world in a trade war all at once, and doing it in a way that is guaranteed to hurt us more than them would cause investors to take a step back, but there hasn’t been a blip in the markets since Trump decided to take his ball and go home from the G6+1. One would think that, given the litany of things related to Donald Trump that we were all told would happen, with complete certainty, by various pundits and prognosticators, that have not in fact happened…one would think that maybe the old books have been thrown out here. I did not vote for him. I find his personality abhorrent and completely obnoxious and American in all the worst ways. But my modest stock portfolio has been a steadily rising green line for the past year. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/65 "2018-06-13T02:06:48Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Can can understand Republicans and Libritarians salivating at the chance to stick it to those snooty socialists lording over us with their universal healthcare and lo gun-crime rates. The thing that I can’t understand is why there isn’t more of a reaction from investors. One would think that Trumps taking on the rest of the free world in a trade war all at once, and doing it in a way that is guaranteed to hurt us more than them would cause investors to take a step back, but there hasn’t been a blip in the markets since Trump decided to take his ball and go home from the G6+1. > > Do they think that someone will take Trump aside and explain to him that if you don’t trade with anyone and no one trades with you that’s called a sanction and is generally viewed as a bad thing to happen to your country, rather than a way to make it great again? Or have they drunk too much Republican kool-aid to the point that they somehow think that the Europeans will fold against Trumps bulling so that he will prove himself to be the master negotiator he always claimed? Investors don’t pull their money when there are profits. As I’ve said before, it’s going to take a disaster for people to ‘get it’. We wish and we hope that corporate America will send some kind of message to Trump. Well guess what – they won’t. They won’t because right now, they’re making money. And they won’t because they’re fucking scared of Trump’s twitter account. They’ve seen how he can sink stocks with a few strokes of his smartphone. Best to just lay low. People also wish and hope that middle America’s going to see the damage he’s doing with tariffs. Again, there’s been no visible damage yet. And even if there is, maybe, just maybe, they blame other countries and not Donald Trump. Liberals and critics of Trump look at Donald Trump and see a fool, and they assume that he’s incompetent and therefore impotent. But look more closely. Donald Trump may not have any idea how to govern a country. He may not have any idea about how to negotiate with foreign powers or economic policy, but he understands how to get people’s attention. He understands power. This guy doesn’t know how to turn a profit, but guess what: this fake billionaire has 50-100 million Americans convinced he’s a business genius and that he’s a billionaire (even though he won’t release his tax returns). This scam artist turned his schtick into the presidency. If he can con his way into the presidency, he can easily, easily con us into giving up our democracy. Not as hard as people think. Venezuelans thought Chavez was a clown. Germany thought Hitler was a joke. Neither were competent actually helping their countries prosper and they led their country to ruin, just like Putin, Duterte, and Erdogan. But that doesn’t matter. They found ways to gain and keep power. Prosperity and power aren’t necessarily related. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/66 "2018-06-13T02:13:00Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > As I’ve said before, it’s going to take a disaster for people to ‘get it’. I see far, far, FAR too many people on the Left who seem to be _hoping_ for that disaster to happen just so that they can have the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.” Fuck these people. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/67 "2018-06-13T02:33:46Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Because throwing down with everyone’d be a good way for the 800 pound gorilla to get his ass shot ? #DicksOutForAmericanTradePolicy 😛 Quoted for lulz ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/68 "2018-06-13T02:51:54Z")
He’s doing it because his image. He is not capable of using a different reason. That is his reason, always, for everything he does. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/69 "2018-06-13T03:33:16Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > The only thing that even comes to mind when I ask myself “what do I remember happening on the news in France, Germany, and the UK in the past few years”, is a rash of terrorism incidents; political instability (Brexit); and…that’s it, basically. Let me reiterate that I’m not saying these countries _aren’t_ important, they just don’t _seem_ important to me. > > If someone asked me “who are the major movers and shakers in the world right now”, my answer is the US, Russia, and China. > > Europe just doesn’t seem relevant anymore. > > Canada is still of significant importance because of its size and because it’s the other major power of the North American continent. Tabarnak de caaaalllliiiiisssse. That seems like a weird benchmark. Florida is constantly in the news because for some reason some drunk or tripping balls guy does something Japan-weird there on a weekly basis - does that mean Florida’s super important ? Are the Kardashians really, but REALLY important ? From an economic standpoint, the EU is a powerhouse with a GDP on par of that of the US, even slightly above it (and about 10x that of Canada. Or Russia, for that matter). From a diplomatic/geopolitic standpoint the UK still has that Commonwealth thing going (even with former members, like India) and even though it doesn’t lord over its Empire any more it still has a privileged diplomatic position with the former bits of it. France has a massive army relative to its GDP and uses it liberally, mostly in Africa. Speaking of, France is still one of the big diplo movers there ; and Africa happens to be the lowkey new Far West - China is currently investing a ton of money and manpower there. In 10, 20 years Africa is going to be what China used to be wrt cheap goods and paint with lead in it. I’m hoping my country (France, that is) moves away from its age-old “let’s just loot the place for all it’s worth and call it a day” policy and follows suit. Germany… well, they might still have [that sausage factory in Tanganyika](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc) :p. No, but seriously, while it’s true Germany and the Scandinavian countries aren’t typically at the forefront of geopolitics ; they’re the ethical spearhead - be it when it comes to looking for neutral parties to further this or that deal or treaty, or pushing towards more better green & sustainable stuff. They’re heavily involved in green R&D ; and of course they still make the best heavy machinery out there. None of this is flashy, none of this explodes, none of it has great tits and none of it bleeds either. So it doesn’t make the evening news. But it’s there, quietly and peacefully chugging along. Sure, it’s not as cool as inflicting a reprehensible clown upon the world but… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/70 "2018-06-13T10:27:51Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > I see far, far, FAR too many people on the Left who seem to be _hoping_ for that disaster to happen just so that they can have the satisfaction of saying “I told you so.” Fuck these people. No, it’s just being realistic. There is something seriously wrong with a society that knowingly elects someone like Donald Trump to be president. That probably doesn’t end well. In the sense that people finally wake up and start educating themselves about how a healthy democracy works, yes, it would satisfy me to say “I told you so” but if people don’t learn from the experience, then there’s no satisfaction to be had. Americans live in a democracy and they’re largely ignorant as to how it ought to work. Ignorance has a price. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/71 "2018-06-13T11:39:21Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Ignorance has a price. The problem being they are intractably convinced that they have already paid the price and it’s free beer & skittles from here on. And if the whole show goes pear-shaped it’s going to happen slower with “Our Don” at the wheel than if the liberal elites were running the show. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/72 "2018-06-13T11:40:22Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > No, it’s just being realistic. > > There is something seriously wrong with a society that knowingly elects someone like Donald Trump to be president. That probably doesn’t end well. In the sense that people finally wake up and start educating themselves about how a healthy democracy works, yes, it would satisfy me to say “I told you so” but if people don’t learn from the experience, then there’s no satisfaction to be had. Americans live in a democracy and they’re largely ignorant as to how it ought to work. Ignorance has a price. But that’s what I wonder about, from time to time: what happens, exactly, if Trump eventually leaves office after the completion of a term, and, well, things are pretty much _okay,_ is all? Maybe even better, in a couple of ways? What lesson gets learned? A guy says _I-Told-You-So_; what’s the response? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/73 "2018-06-13T12:56:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > From a diplomatic/geopolitic standpoint the UK still has that Commonwealth thing going… Honestly, the Commonwealth thing is pretty meaningless. The UK is important because it’s the fifth or sixth largest economy on the planet (it and France are essentially tied) and is a nuclear power. They matter big time without having to count Australia. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2018, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/74 "2018-06-13T13:10:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s what I wonder about, from time to time: what happens, exactly, if Trump eventually leaves office after the completion of a term, and, well, things are pretty much _okay,_ is all? Maybe even better, in a couple of ways? This is not going to happen. Things are not going to be okay, and they certainly won’t be better. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/75 "2018-06-14T15:09:45Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > 1. Sure but things are not quite as simple as all that because for one thing many wealthy western countries have a large trade deficit overall. > 2. For another, the US is a net recipient of investment capital, again like many wealthy western countries. 1. Your response to my statement along the lines (can other people no longer paint, cut and past on this forum? I no longer can) “it’s a problem the US has such a large and persistent trade deficit”. That IMO is a statement of a general truth, but makes no claim that the overall situation is simple. 1. This isn’t ‘for another thing’. It’s a tautology that a country is a net recipient of investment capital if it has a current account deficit\*, can’t be otherwise. Pointing this out doesn’t add real information to anyone looking at the issue on any rational basis, nor does it mean a large and persistent current account deficit is not potentially harmful. \*deficit in trade in good and services: services must be included to specifically quantify the issue or problem, protectionists sometimes ignore that, but the US services surplus overall is fairly small compared to the goods deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/76 "2018-06-14T15:27:54Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > This post is prompted by my own FB feed, where my libertarian and moderate “reluctant Trumper” acquaintances now seem to be fully on board the Trump “Eff the G7” train. This being GD, I wish I had better cites, but Trump’s [approval rating is on the rise](http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2018/06/lowry_trump_s_popularity_on_the_rise) and the comments under this [Brietbart article](http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/11/trump-told-macron-eu-worse-china-slams-car-tariffs/) are pretty jubilant about Trump being the first Republican to finally stand up to the EU, whatever that means. > > I understand that Republicans and Democrats have [apparently flip-flopped](https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/05/04/free-trade-u-turn) on free trade (ironically, back when I was a teenager, free trade was one of the few things I could really get behind on the Republican platform), but I’m still left to wonder - What the hell is going on here? 15 years ago Republicans lost their shit when France didn’t support the US in what was clearly a boneheaded invasion of Iraq. Now they’re perfectly content to stand behind Trump as he pulls the US out of agreements with our historical allies left and right (Iran, Paris), attacks NATO for not paying their fair share, and now starts trade wars with Canada and threatens the entire G7 if they don’t kowtow to his demands. > > The cynic in me says that this is just a case of Republicans not actually having an opinion on anything as long as it pisses off liberals, but there’s got to be an actual reason, right? I thinkit boils down to the USA paying more than our allies. For example, we pay the most for NATO. Shouldn’t other allies pay their fair share? Not all of them do. When it comes to trade, there needs to be some sort of import to export balance, and many nations hit us with tariffs, while we do not do the same to their forgoods. This is hardly fair. A true ally pays their share and doesn’t charge tariffs. Trump is making things better for USA corporations, by lowering their tax rate and making sure the more critical goods the nation needs such as say steel is being produced here in certain volumes. If these industries were to struggle or die out, the exporters could raise their prices. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/77 "2018-06-14T15:48:59Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > I thinkit boils down to the USA paying more than our allies. For example, we pay the most for NATO. Shouldn’t other allies pay their fair share? Not all of them do. Cite? > [@](#): > > When it comes to trade, there needs to be some sort of import to export balance, and many nations hit us with tariffs, while we do not do the same to their forgoods. Cite? > [@](#): > > Trump is making things better for USA corporations Cite? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/78 "2018-06-14T17:00:49Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > When it comes to trade, there needs to be some sort of import to export balance, and many nations hit us with tariffs, while we do not do the same to their forgoods. This is hardly fair. Regarding nations with whom the United States has a trade agreement, this is wrong. _What you are saying is false._ You need to learn more about international trade. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/79 "2018-06-14T20:30:23Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Cite? > > Cite? > > Cite? I agree that point 2 and 3 are wrong and require a cite, but you seriously want a cite that the US pays more than every other country in NATO wrt military expenditures, or that some countries in NATO pay less than the agreed upon levels (which is 2% of GDP IIRC…and I’d guess over half of NATO countries don’t meet those levels)? I mean, I can certainly get a cite for those, I’m just astonished anyone is asking for them I guess. As to the others, I also would love to see a cite backing them up. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2018, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889/80 "2018-06-14T20:34:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I agree that point 2 and 3 are wrong and require a cite, but you seriously want a cite that the US pays more than every other country in NATO wrt military expenditures, or that some countries in NATO pay less than the agreed upon levels (which is 2% of GDP IIRC…and I’d guess over half of NATO countries don’t meet those levels)? I mean, I can certainly get a cite for those, I’m just astonished anyone is asking for them I guess. > > As to the others, I also would love to see a cite backing them up. I think the “cite” on #1 was about them not paying “their fair share”, not that the US pays more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-trumps-anti-ally-protectionism-so-popular/815889.md?page=5)