PDA

View Full Version : Obama the Protectionist: Tire Tariffs! Corporate Welfare!




Epic
09-11-2009, 10:30 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957_pf.html


In one of his first major decisions on trade policy, President Obama opted Friday to impose a tariff on tires from China, a move that fulfills his campaign promise to "crack down" on imports that unfairly undermine American workers but risks angering the nation's second-largest trading partner.

The decision is intended to bolster the ailing U.S. tire industry, in which more than 5,000 jobs have been lost over the past five years as the volume of Chinese tires in the market has tripled.

It comes at a sensitive time, however. Leaders from the world's largest economies are preparing to gather in Pittsburgh in less than two weeks to discuss more cooperation amid tensions over trade.

The tire tariff will amount to 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second and 25 percent the third.

Although a federal trade panel had recommended higher levies -- of 55, 45 and 35 percent, respectively -- the decision is considered a victory for the United Steelworkers union, which filed the trade complaint.

"The president sent the message that we expect others to live by the rules, just as we do," Leo W. Gerard, president of the union, said Friday night.

China's government and its tire manufacturers, as well as tire importers and some U.S. tire makers with plants overseas, had strenuously objected to the measure.

"The President decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case," the White House said in a statement released Friday night.

sratiug
09-12-2009, 08:47 AM
Best thing he's done. Tariffs are the only tax that does not subsidize imports and ship our jobs away.

FrankRep
09-12-2009, 08:59 AM
As inexpensive automobile tires made in China keep rolling into the United States and U.S. tire manufacturers (like Cooper) struggle to stay in business, President Obama will soon have to decide whether or not to impose the 55-percent tariff that was recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission. By Steven J. DuBord

Cheap Chinese Tires Keep Rolling In (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/sectors-mainmenu-46/1855-cheap-chinese-tires-keep-rolling-in)

Steven J. DuBord | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
10 September 2009

Story:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/sectors-mainmenu-46/1855-cheap-chinese-tires-keep-rolling-in

awake
09-12-2009, 09:16 AM
Best thing he's done. Tariffs are the only tax that does not subsidize imports and ship our jobs away.

Tariffs damage everyone; even the people who think they are benefiting. It is essentially a tax to to subsidize already over subsidized national industries at the expense of those who purchase those select items. They reward inefficiency.

Most of all, tariffs are destructive and are against the whole principle of the free market. You are basically endorsing a tax on people who buy and use tires as a gift to those who can not compete in a free market environment.

Anti Federalist
09-12-2009, 09:30 AM
Best thing he's done. Tariffs are the only tax that does not subsidize imports and ship our jobs away.

Agreed.

Tariffs are constitutional.

awake
09-12-2009, 09:38 AM
One can not be for a free market, and for government intervention into the markets when it suits your interests. All taxes (tariffs are taxes on the consumer) ultimately destroy markets.

Tariffs cause conflict and retaliation which is like watching two gangsters shooting themselves in the foot to scare the other.

Epic
09-12-2009, 09:39 AM
Tariffs are just a corporate handout, and harm the economy overall in the long run.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-12-2009, 09:44 AM
I'd rather the government have tariffs than an income tax.

awake
09-12-2009, 10:12 AM
What everyone is missing is that you are trading one poison for another. As soon as you endorse the idea that jobs are "our jobs", you invite the government into the picture. While in reality if you want to protect those jobs, than earn them in the free unhampered market by being more efficient and better than those who produce the same thing. All schemes to guarantee any thing involves government deconstructionism.

What if tariffs between states took place, do you think it would be beneficial?

apropos
09-12-2009, 01:02 PM
if you want to protect those jobs, than earn them in the free unhampered market by being more efficient and better than those who produce the same thing.?

How much do Chinese wages buy in Canada?

Anti Federalist
09-12-2009, 01:13 PM
What everyone is missing is that you are trading one poison for another. As soon as you endorse the idea that jobs are "our jobs", you invite the government into the picture. While in reality if you want to protect those jobs, than earn them in the free unhampered market by being more efficient and better than those who produce the same thing. All schemes to guarantee any thing involves government deconstructionism.

What if tariffs between states took place, do you think it would be beneficial?

You're making a fatal error, just like so many others have as well.

You're assuming this is one free market economy competing against another.

In the case of US/Sino trade that is most certainly not the case.

You're making a free market argument to compete with a highly regulated, command and control, statist prison economy.

If it were up to me, there would be an across the board 30 percent import duty on every single Chinese made item.

sratiug
09-12-2009, 04:15 PM
Tariffs damage everyone; even the people who think they are benefiting. It is essentially a tax to to subsidize already over subsidized national industries at the expense of those who purchase those select items. They reward inefficiency.

Most of all, tariffs are destructive and are against the whole principle of the free market. You are basically endorsing a tax on people who buy and use tires as a gift to those who can not compete in a free market environment.

You cannot prove that a tariff is more destructive to the free trade of Americans than any internal tax. Because it is not. In fact, it is less destructive to free trade of Americans, because Americans pay the tax either way. Relying on internal taxes subsidizes imports, relying on tariffs merely removes the subsidy.

Anyone that supports free trade should support replacing internal taxes with tariffs to guarantee the free-est trade possible for Americans while funding our government at current levels.

awake
09-12-2009, 04:16 PM
So to fight the "highly regulated, command and control, statist prison economy" we adopt polices that will help carry us in to that situation? Tariffs are regulation, they are control; they are statist they grow government. They happen to help destroy markets and usher in the opportunity for government to completely destroy what is left of the free exchange economy.

If Imports are so harmful then why not seal off the U.S from any and all goods coming in? be completely self sufficient and export only. The fact of the matter is this: If you cut off imports, it will severely hurt exports, as you need materials not sufficiently produced here. No one nation has an abundance in every resource, this is why we have world trade and cooperation to do so. By rejecting trade from another country the belligerent country not only hurts the other country, it hurts itself. And the worst of all the only route left is conflict and war to secure resources by force. Sound familiar? Hint; Middle East.

An unfettered free market combined with real free trade can drive all socialist economies into the ground and force them to either adopt free markets or starve - that is unless the socialist countries can convince the free market countries to give welfare to prop them up. It is too bad that Tariffs (deconstructionism) are viewed as a benefit and a solution, as the state has used them quite effectively to grow into what it is today.

sratiug
09-12-2009, 04:22 PM
One can not be for a free market, and for government intervention into the markets when it suits your interests. All taxes (tariffs are taxes on the consumer) ultimately destroy markets.

Tariffs cause conflict and retaliation which is like watching two gangsters shooting themselves in the foot to scare the other.

Taxing only American producers and workers and calling it free trade is to lie. Trade would be much more free in America if tariffs were the only tax.

sratiug
09-12-2009, 04:26 PM
So to fight the "highly regulated, command and control, statist prison economy" we adopt polices that will help carry us in to that situation? Tariffs are regulation, they are control; they are statist they grow government. They happen to help destroy markets and usher in the opportunity for government to completely destroy what is left of the free exchange economy.

If Imports are so harmful then why not seal off the U.S from any and all goods coming in? be completely self sufficient and export only. The fact of the matter is this: If you cut off imports, it will severely hurt exports, as you need materials not sufficiently produced here. No one nation has an abundance in every resource, this is why we have world trade and cooperation to do so. By rejecting trade from another country the belligerent country not only hurts the other country, it hurts itself. And the worst of all the only route left is conflict and war to secure resources by force. Sound familiar? Hint; Middle East.

An unfettered free market combined with real free trade can drive all socialist economies into the ground and force them to either adopt free markets or starve - that is unless the socialist countries can convince the free market countries to give welfare to prop them up. It is too bad that Tariffs (deconstructionism) are viewed as a benefit and a solution, as the state has used them quite effectively to grow into what it is today.

Currently we tax everything produced in all 50 states and don't tax most imports. Please explain how that is a level playing field more so than replacing these taxes with a flat tariff.

awake
09-12-2009, 04:28 PM
There are other nations and people other than 'Americans'. And I am not trying to prove that they are more destructive or not. The fact is that they are destructive. Protectionism in any industry raises the prices of those products subject to the tariff. The consumer has to pay this in the end and the government gets its cut followed by the industries welfare handout. The industry gains for a short while but every one gets forced to pay higher prices, even the people who produce the tariff items - just what a tax does, destroys wealth that would have been better spent in other places in the economy; or better yet, saved.


You cannot prove that a tariff is more destructive to the free trade of Americans than any internal tax. Because it is not. In fact, it is less destructive to free trade of Americans, because Americans pay the tax either way. Relying on internal taxes subsidizes imports, relying on tariffs merely removes the subsidy.

Anyone that supports free trade should support replacing internal taxes with tariffs to guarantee the free-est trade possible for Americans while funding our government at current levels.

awake
09-12-2009, 04:32 PM
How about no taxes( or as close to none as possible) and no tariffs. Otherwise you are simply replacing one evil with another and calling it fixed.

I have said my piece, thanks for the lively debate.

sratiug
09-12-2009, 04:42 PM
There are other nations and people other than 'Americans'. And I am not trying to prove that they are more destructive or not. The fact is that they are destructive. Protectionism in any industry raises the prices of those products subject to the tariff. The consumer has to pay this in the end and the government gets its cut followed by the industries welfare handout. The industry gains for a short while but every one gets forced to pay higher prices, even the people who make them - just what a tax does, destroys wealth that would have been better spent in other places in the economy; or better yet, saved.

Those other people in other countries don't pay our taxes and are not entitled the benefits they get by our tax structure subsidizing imports. Even with a flat tariff (the only kind I'm suggesting), Americans still pay the entire tax. If American producers and workers benefit, that is much better than us paying our taxes to subsidize foreign producers and workers who pay no taxes in America.

awake
09-12-2009, 04:50 PM
http://blog.mises.org/archives/002389.asp

nobody's_hero
09-12-2009, 05:19 PM
Hopefully, the Chinese will get mad and stop buying our bonds.

amy31416
09-12-2009, 05:31 PM
Tariffs make sense to me. We have to inspect the goods and take a chance that they will or won't sell, we also have to protect our economy.

One of the few good moves by Obama, in my opinion.

Young Paleocon
09-12-2009, 05:38 PM
Protectionist tariffs are one of the main reasons for the civil war.... Some people on here need to read a little Bastiat.

awake
09-12-2009, 05:42 PM
How about some Rothbard

http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

awake
09-12-2009, 05:45 PM
Every time the government acts it is to steal and or destroy.

NYgs23
09-12-2009, 06:01 PM
First of all, how can he do this without the approval of Congress? It's Congress that's charged with setting tax rates. How can Obama just decide to impose a tariff like an absolute monarch?

For those of you defending this move on the basis that tariffs are less destructive than the income tax, I don't see where Obama is replacing any portion of the income tax or any other tax. He's just piling on yet another tax.

For those of you who seem to think protectionism actually helps the economy, that's shocking on a forum for Ron Paul supporters. The benefits of free trade and the deprivations of protectionism are Economics 101.

If protectionism works, North Korea should be rich.

If protectionism works, Hong Kong should be impoverished.

If protectionism works, 17th century mercantilism benefited everyone.

If protectionism works, subsistence farmers should be living in the lap of luxury.

Using the protectionism of other countries as an excuse is absolute folly, leading to a game of oneupmanship by which we will all, once again, be reduced to the primitive mindset of mercantilistic "economic nationalism." Haven't you learned the danger of letting one aggression beget other aggressions?

awake
09-12-2009, 06:09 PM
"How can Obama just decide to impose a tariff like an absolute monarch?"

Judging from this thread alone, tariffs are a popular thing. He probably knew he would not get much domestic resistance as long as most only think it hurts the other guy.

NYgs23
09-12-2009, 06:13 PM
Judging from this thread alone, tariffs are a popular thing. He probably knew he would not get much domestic resistance as long as most only think it hurts the other guy.

http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/terkerderr.jpg

Dey tuk er jerbs!

awake
09-12-2009, 06:25 PM
"Isolationism and corporatism engender protectionism and trade wars. They prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results." Ron Paul - End the Fed

Now lets put this to bed.

sratiug
09-13-2009, 10:16 AM
"Isolationism and corporatism engender protectionism and trade wars. They prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results." Ron Paul - End the Fed

Now lets put this to bed.

No. Let's acknowledge that of all taxes paid by Americans, a flat tariff is by far the least evil and the least destructive to free trade. Jefferson new this, and Ron Paul knows this. Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would be a change for the better and stop the subsidizing of imports that is destroying our economy.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

sratiug
09-13-2009, 10:22 AM
Protectionist tariffs are one of the main reasons for the civil war.... Some people on here need to read a little Bastiat.

Lincoln invading the South was the cause of the War Between the States. The South enacted a 10% tariff themselves to fund their government.

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2009, 10:46 AM
Tariffs can only exist when there are nations. That doesn't fit the globalist agenda. Obviously we need to eliminte all tariffs and replace them with global income and sales taxes. It can be administered through the World Bank and the IMF...

RevolutionSD
09-13-2009, 10:51 AM
Anyone who is for tariffs is anti-freedom.

awake
09-13-2009, 11:44 AM
Tariffs can only exist when there are nations. That doesn't fit the globalist agenda. Obviously we need to eliminte all tariffs and replace them with global income and sales taxes. It can be administered through the World Bank and the IMF...


What the...?

As for the tarriff issue, I know Ron Paul is for certain tariffs... I just happen to think that if you OK the idea of tariffs it will be abused like taxation has been. Example; 35% tax on tires by Obama and a near 50% tarrif on steel for Bush in his reign. It will be used and abused.

KenInMontiMN
09-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Ongoing massive trade deficit eventually destroys markets, our economy is in shambles today partly because of this. Tariffs have long been a reasonable balancing mechanism. That is not protectionism unless applied to particular industries only, essentially pork (as this one is) or used to close borders entirely; tariffs against Chinese imports in particular should be across the board on everything, and gradually increased until a reasonable import/export ratio is achieved.

erowe1
09-13-2009, 01:07 PM
Best thing he's done. Tariffs are the only tax that does not subsidize imports and ship our jobs away.

There's no such thing as "shipping jobs away." If you doubt that, then plan a field trip some time to go to any of our ports and start searching shipping containers until you find the ones with the jobs in them. There's no such thing as a good tax. If China wants to send us tires at a loss to them, subsidized by their own taxpayers, let them.

erowe1
09-13-2009, 01:09 PM
As for the tarriff issue, I know Ron Paul is for certain tariffs.

I highly doubt that. I'd love to see the source. I've heard him say that he'd take tariffs over the income tax, but that's not the same thing as being for tariffs. He'd probably take a kick in head over the income tax too.

erowe1
09-13-2009, 01:12 PM
tariffs against Chinese imports in particular should be across the board on everything, and gradually increased until a reasonable import/export ratio is achieved.

The only import/export ratio that can ever be called reasonable is whatever the ratio is when the government stays out of it and people freely choose to do business with whomever they want. And if China's government chooses to intervene, then the best we can do is make sure ours doesn't.

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 02:45 PM
Everyone here echoing the Buchananite/Hamiltonian/unionist line on tariffs are economically ignorant. It's one thing to argue that tariffs are a less destructive form of taxation then the income tax and, therefore, replacing the income tax with an equivalent tariff would be a step up. Fine. But it's entirely another thing to talk nonsense about how tariffs are a positive good because they "stop the foreigners from stealing our jobs" or other such foolishness. If you don't understand this issue, which you clearly don't if you favor tariffs as being beneficial to the economy, then stop talking about it. It's embarrassing.

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Well, now all you tariff-loving, union-kissing, consumer-burdening folks can see what effect your favored form of anti-free market aggression has per Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9igRzOC55wE):


China announced a probe into the alleged dumping of American auto and chicken products, two days after U.S. President Barack Obama imposed tariffs on imports of tires from the Asian nation.


Pork, soybean and other farm goods exporters urged Obama Sept. 3 to refrain from imposing tariffs or quotas on imports of tires from China because of the fear of retaliation against U.S. food and agriculture products.

Protectionism: the friend of the workers!

Young Paleocon
09-13-2009, 03:32 PM
Lincoln invading the South was the cause of the War Between the States. The South enacted a 10% tariff themselves to fund their government.

Notice I said protectionist tariffs. The Morill Tariff was 35% in 1861 and that was a prime mover for succession. Thus Lincoln couldn't be out competed for trade and lose such a massive tax base as the entire Southern seaboard so he attacked. Tariffs start wars it's a matter of fact. To what degree you want to play with the numbers doesn't make it any more useful or moral.

tmosley
09-13-2009, 03:49 PM
Taxing only American producers and workers and calling it free trade is to lie. Trade would be much more free in America if tariffs were the only tax.

The solution to taxes isn't more taxes. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

Obama has just fired the first shot in a trade war that will reduce the US to a third world nation. Enjoy your soup lines, while they last.

nobody's_hero
09-13-2009, 05:00 PM
The solution to taxes isn't more taxes. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

Obama has just fired the first shot in a trade war that will reduce the US to a third world nation. Enjoy your soup lines, while they last.

Possibly a blessing in disguise? Maybe things will get bad enough to where people do something about it. Or, as I mentioned earlier, maybe China will get mad and dump the dollar.

Then maybe we can get this "end the fed" ball rolling, so to speak.

Maybe I'm just being too optimistic that our economy will hit rock bottom again. We can assume that if everything gets back to 'normal', the people will go back to sleep. —Bad outcome, I think.

tnvoter
09-13-2009, 05:06 PM
We should be placing tariffs on Chinese goods for human rights reasons, however they are correct that Obama is doing it for the wrong reasons; we should be happy over this. :)

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 06:17 PM
We should be placing tariffs on Chinese goods for human rights reasons

If that's the case, perhaps "we" (the US govt) should be placing tariffs on ourselves for "human rights reasons." After all, how many human rights violations is the US govt guilty of. But, of course, such a thing never hurts the oppressive government in charge, only the people underneath it. Just look at the trade sanctions that our government placed on Iraq.

tnvoter
09-13-2009, 08:11 PM
If that's the case, perhaps "we" (the US govt) should be placing tariffs on ourselves for "human rights reasons." After all, how many human rights violations is the US govt guilty of. But, of course, such a thing never hurts the oppressive government in charge, only the people underneath it. Just look at the trade sanctions that our government placed on Iraq.

I agree, and if our "civilized" allies would cut off trade with us when we do these type of things perhaps our mass of sheep would realize we were in error.

Last I checked things in Tibet are still much worse off as far as human rights go.

I'm basing my view on China from Ron Paul's foreign policy of freedom speeches to congress- we're selling ourselves out to something a little worse than bad policy.

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 08:29 PM
...if our "civilized" allies would cut off trade with us when we do these type of things perhaps our mass of sheep would realize we were in error.

That didn't work in Iraq. In any case, the principle of trying to use government aggression to stop other government aggression is a principle that gives us "humanitarian" wars and ever-increasingly centralization of power at the federal level. It's folly; it's like Boromir hoping to use the Ring of Power to defeat Sauron.


I'm basing my view on China from Ron Paul's foreign policy of freedom speeches to congress

Ron Paul, so far as I know, has always supported free trade, even with regimes like North Korea (and if he didn't, he'd be wrong about that). Trade brings with it peace and prosperity, which inexorably give rise to a love of freedom. China is still oppressive, but it's far better than it was in the days of Chairman Mao, thanks to the greater prosperity and social stability of a relatively free economy. Whereas trade barriers increase impoverishment, which breeds not a love for freedom, but chaos and social primitivism. Your mode of thinking is the same that as that of a drug warrior who thinks that "cracking down" on drug users will cause the situation to improve rather than to deteriorate.

tnvoter
09-13-2009, 08:58 PM
That didn't work in Iraq. In any case, the principle of trying to use government aggression to stop other government aggression is a principle that gives us "humanitarian" wars and ever-increasingly centralization of power at the federal level. It's folly; it's like Boromir hoping to use the Ring of Power to defeat Sauron.



Ron Paul, so far as I know, has always supported free trade, even with regimes like North Korea (and if he didn't, he'd be wrong about that). Trade brings with it peace and prosperity, which inexorably give rise to a love of freedom. China is still oppressive, but it's far better than it was in the days of Chairman Mao, thanks to the greater prosperity and social stability of a relatively free economy. Whereas trade barriers increase impoverishment, which breeds not a love for freedom, but chaos and social primitivism. Your mode of thinking is the same that as that of a drug warrior who thinks that "cracking down" on drug users will cause the situation to improve rather than to deteriorate.

What it comes down to is China is not playing by the rules and crying over us not playing by them now that they are receiving it. They have killed 10 million Tibetans in "a time of peace" within the last 3 decades alone, evening the playing field in a time where free trade does not exist is nothing you will find me complaining about regardless of our own errors. We both know what we'd like to do about legalizing freedom in our own country, but what Obama has done might speed things up towards this while pissing off an enemy to human rights at the same time... I won't complain.

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 09:16 PM
What it comes down to is China is not playing by the rules and crying over us not playing by them now that they are receiving it. They have killed 10 million Tibetans in "a time of peace" within the last 3 decades alone, evening the playing field in a time where free trade does not exist is nothing you will find me complaining about regardless of our own errors. We both know what we'd like to do about legalizing freedom in our own country, but what Obama has done might speed things up towards this while pissing off an enemy to human rights at the same time... I won't complain.

So protectionism "speeds up freedom." Even as it harms individuals in both the United State and in China. your positions are fueled by little more than hatred of Chinese government: it "pisses off an enemy to human rights." Well, judging by that standard to US government should ban trade with every nation-state on the planet. You sound just like a neocon arguing for the Iraq War six years ago. Well, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore.

tnvoter
09-13-2009, 09:21 PM
So protectionism "speeds up freedom." Even as it harms individuals in both the United State and in China. your positions are fueled by little more than hatred of Chinese government: it "pisses off an enemy to human rights." Well, judging by that standard to US government should ban trade with every nation-state on the planet. You sound just like a neocon arguing for the Iraq War six years ago. Well, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore.

Hah, it doesn't speed up freedom (you're being silly by not trying to see my point- we BOTH know we'd prefer things the better way), however it just might speed up the fall of the empire and possibly wake up our masses of asses.

I don't hate the Chinese government, I simply mentioned in detail why they are most definitely an enemy to human rights. I'm not arguing for Obama's points like a Neocon, I'm simply stating why I'm not pissed at the possibility of 2 birds being hit with 1 stone.

You're not being convincing, you're being argumentative.

tnvoter
09-13-2009, 09:26 PM
I'm simply stating why I'm not pissed at the possibility of 2 birds being hit with 1 stone.



aka looking on the bright side.

NYgs23
09-13-2009, 09:29 PM
Hah, it doesn't speed up freedom...however it just might speed up the fall of the empire and possibly wake up our masses of asses.

I see. Well, I don't believe in the let's-hope-things-get-worse-so-it-reaches-critical-mass strategy for liberty.

Anti Federalist
09-13-2009, 09:44 PM
It is too bad that Tariffs (deconstructionism) are viewed as a benefit and a solution, as the state has used them quite effectively to grow into what it is today.

This is both historically and economically incorrect.

The massive, omnipotent state we suffer under now got it's start post WWII with personal income taxation withholding, payroll taxes and corporate income taxes.

Tariffs, as a constitutional means of funding government at the federal level make up less than 7 percent of all revenue.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_1.gif

sratiug
09-13-2009, 10:32 PM
Notice I said protectionist tariffs. The Morill Tariff was 35% in 1861 and that was a prime mover for succession. Thus Lincoln couldn't be out competed for trade and lose such a massive tax base as the entire Southern seaboard so he attacked. Tariffs start wars it's a matter of fact. To what degree you want to play with the numbers doesn't make it any more useful or moral.

What you are saying is that the Union attacked the South because it placed a 10% tariff on their goods while they had a much higher tariff on Southern goods, which makes no sense. Lincoln invaded the South for money yes, but not because the South invoked a high tariff. Lincoln knew he wouldn't get the tariff money from the South or from the goods going overland from the South to the Union because he had no way to collect that either.

If we followed your logic you should be afraid of starting a war if you repeal all your tariffs.

sratiug
09-13-2009, 10:39 PM
The solution to taxes isn't more taxes. If you can't see that then you are a fool.

Obama has just fired the first shot in a trade war that will reduce the US to a third world nation. Enjoy your soup lines, while they last.

Your reply does not address the two points I made in the post you quoted. I assume this means you agree with those statements which I reposted below?


Originally Posted by sratiug
Taxing only American producers and workers and calling it free trade is to lie. Trade would be much more free in America if tariffs were the only tax.

Putting the entire tax load on American workers and producers is subsidizing imports and that is what is reducing us to a third world economy.

KenInMontiMN
09-13-2009, 10:42 PM
Tariffs are the far superior method to fund govt, as compared to the methods primarily used today. The notion that tariffs played any role in bringing our economy to it's knees is completely ludicrous. Too small a factor today to have any impact even if it were negative. No society can sustain itself in ongoing fashion on expanded borrowing, and wild trade imbalance has our private external debt every bit as large as the public debt. Tariffs can and should be used to control this or we consume into bankruptcy, with no matching production export revenues.

Driving the USA into the poorhouse to keep unions down is a very negative choice. Unions aren't the enemy; the Corporate-Welfare state is the enemy, it controls all global markets and leaves minimal space for localized entrepreneurship, and no possibility of free markets. Furthermore, the benefits of free markets, the whole reason for preferring them, evaporate away in favor of dollar mercantilism when we allow massive imbalance to accumulate. This draining of our wealth in order to be the world's debtor nation amounts to selling our national soul and sovereignty to foreign governments and global financial entities.

revolutionisnow
09-13-2009, 10:58 PM
Flat tariffs would be fine, but not managed trade and variable tariffs for different products. I think this is a bad move, and sets a bad precedent. We don't want to start having trade wars with countries, and this will turn into a tit for tat quickly.

Young Paleocon
09-13-2009, 11:15 PM
What you are saying is that the Union attacked the South because it placed a 10% tariff on their goods while they had a much higher tariff on Southern goods, which makes no sense. Lincoln invaded the South for money yes, but not because the South invoked a high tariff. Lincoln knew he wouldn't get the tariff money from the South or from the goods going overland from the South to the Union because he had no way to collect that either.

If we followed your logic you should be afraid of starting a war if you repeal all your tariffs.

I'm saying Lincoln attacked the South because they succeeded and he couldn't collect the tariffs from the South any longer, and that the South would out compete the North for trade due to substantially lower tariffs. He would also lose the vast majority of the nations exports which were primarily agricultural at the time, and thus would not have sufficient populace to plunder as he implemented the "American System" of high tariffs, fiat currency, a national bank, and internal improvements. So anyway I think you misread my post. Tariffs create tensions in foreign relations, encourage domestic inefficiency, and cause prices of all goods that have a foreign counterpart to rise due to an elevated price ceiling on imported goods.

denison
09-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Hopefully, the Chinese will get mad and stop buying our bonds.

Hopefully they will get mad and dump the dollar.

No1ButPaul08
09-13-2009, 11:37 PM
How can anyone possibly support this nonsense. This is a special interest handout, nothing more. It's one thing to support a small flat, uniform tariff across all industries as the only form of revenue for the government. It's very different when the tariff is targeted to a specific industry, like this one.

Just another special interest handout for Obama's union buddies to buy votes.

Saving Industry X (http://jim.com/econ/chap14p1.html)

denison
09-13-2009, 11:41 PM
We should be placing tariffs on Chinese goods for human rights reasons, however they are correct that Obama is doing it for the wrong reasons; we should be happy over this. :)

what an idiot. if that's true then China should place tariffs on america for human rights abuses. like killing over 1 million innocent iraqis/afghans in useless wars. or excessive police brutality, exploitation of cheap illegal mexican labor etc.... To bad America is full of hypocritical idiots, the people in this country are a waste of space. :rolleyes:

TER
09-14-2009, 12:01 AM
I see. Well, I don't believe in the let's-hope-things-get-worse-so-it-reaches-critical-mass strategy for liberty.

+1

TER
09-14-2009, 12:02 AM
This is both historically and economically incorrect.

The massive, omnipotent state we suffer under now got it's start post WWII with personal income taxation withholding, payroll taxes and corporate income taxes.

Tariffs, as a constitutional means of funding government at the federal level make up less than 7 percent of all revenue.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_1.gif

And what percentage of wars?

TER
09-14-2009, 12:05 AM
Flat tariffs would be fine, but not managed trade and variable tariffs for different products. I think this is a bad move, and sets a bad precedent. We don't want to start having trade wars with countries, and this will turn into a tit for tat quickly.

My concern as well.

nobody's_hero
09-14-2009, 05:30 AM
And what percentage of wars?

Wars are typically funded by borrowing money and/or inflating currency (if that's what you were referring to by asking about the "percentage of wars"). For that matter, the Federal government doesn't need an income tax, or a sales tax, etc.

The State has a few 'unlimited' resources for which to get money. It really does not need the tariff on tires to get funds (as this will only make a very, very minute dent in our deficit, negligible even), so for that reason alone this action is suspect—we can assume that Obama did this solely for the benefit of the American tire industries. It is safe to say that this particular tariff is indeed a "protectionist" tariff.

But, before the civil war, there were "flat" or "revenue tariffs" which funded much of our nation's early government. If there were some way to gradually get back to that, and end the income tax, I could see supporting it.

Right now though, we should probably be looking for ways to de-fund our rapidly growing government.

I do try to look on the bright side though, and I really do have my fingers crossed that China will stop loaning us money over this (though, it seems really hard to piss China off enough to do that, because apparently they still think we are a wealthy nation capable of paying them back, lol lol), or better yet, dump the dollar.

I have noticed that as the economy has improved, Ron Paul has been spending less time in front of the cameras, and Americans, now with their false sense that we are well off, have turned their eyes on more government programs for which to spend money on, or worse, stopped caring altogether. People listen better on how to fix the economy when the economy is clearly broken (like when the DOW drops hundreds of points a day for several days in a row), than when the economy has the illusion of working properly (like when the DJIA climbs a dozen points and the media talking heads start frothing at the mouth over how fantastic our economy is doing).

As far a trade war goes, U.S. industries are doomed anyway, so I don't see this as much of a threat. China's industries are becoming more and more productive, and that nation is becoming more and more self-reliant. —Not the case here in America. We are, unfortunately, the Americans on Peter Schiff's "Island" who eat everything but do no work.

angelatc
09-14-2009, 05:43 AM
Best thing he's done. Tariffs are the only tax that does not subsidize imports and ship our jobs away.

And it's constitutional. But make no mistake - he did this to protect the unions, not the economy.

tnvoter
09-15-2009, 01:42 AM
what an idiot. if that's true then China should place tariffs on america for human rights abuses. like killing over 1 million innocent iraqis/afghans in useless wars. or excessive police brutality, exploitation of cheap illegal mexican labor etc.... To bad America is full of hypocritical idiots, the people in this country are a waste of space. :rolleyes:

Waste of space because of a different opinion than yours? Are you 12? At least keep a civil discussion before stooping yourself.

Objectivist
09-15-2009, 03:49 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103957_pf.html

NO, Union PAYOFFS!

Anti Federalist
11-28-2018, 05:28 PM
Bump

PAF
11-28-2018, 05:38 PM
Bump

Trump tariffs, USMCA forced unionization, I likewise bump to hear the excuses/reasons.

r3volution 3.0
11-28-2018, 06:00 PM
Trump tariffs, USMCA forced unionization, I likewise bump to hear the excuses/reasons.

Trump's trying to fight the globalists with the tariffs so...[blah blah derp derp].

^excuse

It was mindless tribalism then, and it's mindless tribalism now; no one really cares about economic policy.

^reason

axiomata
11-28-2018, 06:43 PM
"Isolationism and corporatism engender protectionism and trade wars. They prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results." Ron Paul - End the Fed

Now lets put this to bed.

Who is this Ron Paul guy?