PDA

View Full Version : [Ron Paul] - "Trade Wars and Protectionism are not Free Trade"




Reason
09-22-2009, 12:17 AM
Trade Wars and Protectionism are not Free Trade (http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20 found,ID=090921_3531,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml)

Two weeks ago, both the administration and the Fed announced with straight faces that the recession was over and the signs of economic recovery were clear. Then last week, the president made a stunning decision that signals the administration’s determination to repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression. Much like the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs that set off a global trade war and effectively doomed us to ten more years of economic misery, Obama’s decision to enact steep tariffs on Chinese imported tires could spark a trade war with the single most important trading partner we have. Not only does China manufacture a whole host of products that end up on American store shelves, they are also still buying our Treasury debt.

One has to wonder why this course of action is being undertaken if the administration really believes its own statements about economic recovery. Why are they still trying to fix something they have supposedly already fixed? The most troubling thing is the rhetoric about free trade given to justify this. The administration claims it is merely enforcing trade policies and that this is necessary for free trade. This sort of double speak demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of free trade, economics and world history. Yet these are the same people the country trusts to solve our problems. This sort of thing should remove all doubt about the credibility of the decision makers in Washington.

The truth is this will hurt American consumers by driving up prices of tires and cars. This will also complicate matters for our already crippled manufacturing and agricultural industries, if and when China retaliates against US made products. Whatever jobs might be saved in the tire and steel industries here as a result of this protectionist measure will likely be lost in other American industries. It is even doubtful that those jobs will be saved, as cheap tires can be obtained from other places like Mexico instead. It is difficult to see any real winners among all the losers where trade wars are concerned. If Unions think this is beneficial to them, they are being penny-wise and pound foolish.

Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products. Isolationism is arming both sides of a conflict, only to discover that you’ve made two enemies instead of keeping two friends. Isolationism is trying to police the world but creating more resentment than gratitude. Isolationism is not understanding economics, or other cultures, but clumsily intervening anyway and creating major disasters out of minor problems.

The government should not be in the business of giving out favors to special interests or picking winners and losers in the market, yet this has been most of what has consumed politicians’ attention in Washington. It has reached a fevered pitch lately and it needs to end if we are ever to regain a functional and prosperous economy.

Posted by Ron Paul (09-21-2009, 02:21 PM) filed under Foreign Policy (http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog/Foreign%20Policy,999,All,No%20Category%20found,TEM PLATE=blog_bycat.shtml)

dgr
09-22-2009, 02:04 AM
Hamiliton said '' A nation state cannot survive without manufacturing"

where is the balance between free trade and the destruction of self sufficiency that leads to the descruction of soverign nation and its security?

qwerty
09-22-2009, 02:26 AM
YouTube - Ron Paul : Trade Wars and Protectionism are not Free Trade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JTge70W8yY)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/9mvmn/ron_paul_trade_wars_and_protectionism_are_not/

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-22-2009, 02:47 AM
Hamiliton said '' A nation state cannot survive without manufacturing"

where is the balance between free trade and the destruction of self sufficiency that leads to the descruction of soverign nation and its security?

Read about the Division of Labor. America is no longer a manufacturing Economy, and we don't need it. We are a technological Economy now. Seriously, we need to educate people out of this fallacy that we need to produce things that other countries produce cheaper, and yes, it would still be cheaper even without no Government interference.

So, we import manufactured goods, and we export Technological goods. That's the gist anyways, but with all the Anti-trust, Sherman / Clayton Acts, Regulations, Employee mandates, etc. our economy is down in the shitter. That isn't to say that we should have NO manufacturing. We should have at least 25-30% of what our imports are.

Oh by the way, our trade commerce is no where near Free Trade. If it was goods would be a hell of a lot cheaper, and the standard of living would skyrocket.

Objectivist
09-22-2009, 03:09 AM
If you look at the tariffs imposed during FDRs Admin you'd see that the country suffered from that move.

I can't stand Communism and I appreciate the fact that China has moved in a Capitalist direction over the years but the next set of tyres I buy will be imported from Germany.:D
I sure as hell am not going to help Union tyre makers in the USA because a Fascist wants me to.

awake
09-22-2009, 04:46 AM
Free trade amounts to a few sentences on a single piece of paper; We will not prevent any of your goods from crossing our border and we expect the same from you in kind. If even that is too much.

Government managed trade (for its favored industries) is what is currently being touted as free trade. It does not take thousands of pages to say you're free to send your goods to us.

the Idea of a tarrif is to prevent competition, shelter already over protected companies and industries and make those tariff applicable goods more expensive then they otherwise would have been. It amounts to a tax plain and simple. It sets up an environment of government dependency and lobbyist armies living on the doorstep of government. The gainers from tariffs find a temporary boost or stimulus from their gift from government but eventually it wears off as the higher prices cascade through the market wiping away the gain.The industries no longer benefiting from the tariff are left to go once again to government for another fix, and so the vicious and festering growth in cronyism is observable.

nandnor
09-22-2009, 06:19 AM
nvm

erowe1
09-22-2009, 09:25 AM
Free trade amounts to a few sentences on a single piece of paper; We will not prevent any of your goods from crossing our border and we expect the same from you in kind. If even that is too much.


I would amend that.

Free trade amounts to: "We will not impede any of your or our goods from crossing our border. We don't expect the same from you in kind."

qwerty
09-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Bump! :)

Reason
09-22-2009, 12:59 PM
The entire debate on tariff's is very interesting to me mostly because I don't know shit about them, how they work, their advantages/disadvantages.

Anyone have some good introductory info sources on this topic?

dgr
09-22-2009, 11:51 PM
But here is the problem I have, we can't build a plane, a ship or highway without imported steel or parts. WE are increasingly importing food from other countries making it impossible for independent farmers to survive, they are killing milk cows in California because the milk prices have drooped so . If we can not provide ourselves with the means to be self sufficient, what are we going to do when hyper inflation or currency change or just retalitation causes a increase in price we cant pay or withoulding of materials we nedd to survive?

erowe1
09-25-2009, 11:52 AM
I missed it when it came out a couple days ago. But George Will has a great column on this.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will092309.php3

TGGRV
09-25-2009, 03:12 PM
What Obama doesn't get... China is in control of US policy. If I'd be the Chinese PM, I'd call Obama and tell him he has 48 hours to remove all tariffs for China or I am dumping all the US treasuries on the market the next day. This is called trade and financial warfare and the US did it throughout history. It's weird in a way how tables are turning.

sratiug
09-25-2009, 03:51 PM
Apart from the government printing itself enough money for an endowment, flat tariffs are the most logical way to fund our federal government. Ron Paul should have suggested that tire manufacturers and their employees be exempted from all federal taxation to slightly level the playing field with their foreign competitors, who do not pay any American tax. The tire manufacturers and their employees would still be paying state income, sales, and property taxes in the US.

Of course that would beg the question, why not exempt all Americans? If we must have a federal government funded by taxes, flat tariffs are the least restrictive tax on free trade known.

TGGRV
09-26-2009, 04:40 AM
Read about the Division of Labor. America is no longer a manufacturing Economy, and we don't need it. We are a technological Economy now. Seriously, we need to educate people out of this fallacy that we need to produce things that other countries produce cheaper, and yes, it would still be cheaper even without no Government interference.

So, we import manufactured goods, and we export Technological goods. That's the gist anyways, but with all the Anti-trust, Sherman / Clayton Acts, Regulations, Employee mandates, etc. our economy is down in the shitter. That isn't to say that we should have NO manufacturing. We should have at least 25-30% of what our imports are.

Oh by the way, our trade commerce is no where near Free Trade. If it was goods would be a hell of a lot cheaper, and the standard of living would skyrocket.
You expect people to get economics? They think producing means making shoes and clothing. lol. The thing is, importing cheap stuff and producing higher edge things is the way to go as a developed society. The problem is that due to the huge debt and tons of taxes and regulation, nobody does shit besides services.


Apart from the government printing itself enough money for an endowment, flat tariffs are the most logical way to fund our federal government. Ron Paul should have suggested that tire manufacturers and their employees be exempted from all federal taxation to slightly level the playing field with their foreign competitors, who do not pay any American tax. The tire manufacturers and their employees would still be paying state income, sales, and property taxes in the US.

Of course that would beg the question, why not exempt all Americans? If we must have a federal government funded by taxes, flat tariffs are the least restrictive tax on free trade known.
Tax exemption is a moral hazard. Besides, as I said, if I would be China, I'd violate the WTO agreements if the US does it first.

Sales taxes are the best way to fund the government. It doesn't distorts competition and so on.

sratiug
09-26-2009, 08:25 AM
Tax exemption is a moral hazard. Besides, as I said, if I would be China, I'd violate the WTO agreements if the US does it first.

Sales taxes are the best way to fund the government. It doesn't distorts competition and so on.

All Chinese production is exempted from American taxes. We subsidize imports with our internal taxation.

A national sales tax would involve the federal government in every transaction in the US.

eOs
09-26-2009, 08:39 AM
The entire debate on tariff's is very interesting to me mostly because I don't know shit about them, how they work, their advantages/disadvantages.

Anyone have some good introductory info sources on this topic?

I would like to know as well.

sratiug
09-26-2009, 10:03 AM
From Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address...

At home, fellow-citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if they had any merit, the State authorities might adopt them instead of others less approved. 4
The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States?

sratiug
09-26-2009, 10:11 PM
bump