[PROTECTIONISM FAIL] House Passes China Currency Bill >:(

[Sentient Void]

FUCKING PROTECTIONISM FAIL.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/29/house-set-pass-aimed-chinas-yuan/


The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday aimed at putting pressure on China to let its currency rise faster, fanning the flames of a long-running dispute over trade and jobs.

The bill, passed 348-79 with heavy support from Democrats but Republicans more divided, treats China's exchange rate as a subsidy. That would open the door to extra duties on Chinese goods entering the United States, some of which are already subject to special levies.

The measure could play well in the U.S. congressional election on November 2, with voters worried about their jobs and a sluggish economy. But it must win Senate approval and be signed into law by President Barack Obama -- by no means a sure bet.

The Obama administration has not taken a stance on the bill and may hope just the threat spurs more movement from China.

Before the House vote, China's central bank reaffirmed its pledge to increase the flexibility of the yuan and improve the way it manages the exchange rate.

U.S. lawmakers have long brandished the sword of trade retaliation for what they see as China's policy of undervaluing the yuan to give its exports an unfair advantage. But they have never sent the president any legislation to sign into law.

"We have a major problem and action is necessary," said Sander Levin, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao talked about China's currency and huge trade surplus with the United States on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly last week.

"The reason that I'm pushing China about their currency is because their currency is undervalued," Obama said on Wednesday. "That's not the main reason for our trade imbalance but it's a contributing factor."

Despite the yuan's modest gains against the dollar since Beijing allowed more movement in June, International Monetary Fund economists estimate the yuan is 5-27 percent undervalued.

GLOBAL CURRENCY WAR?

China's tight leash on the yuan is under intense scrutiny as countries around the world look to export their way back to economic health, raising concerns they will intentionally weaken their currencies to gain an edge.

Japan intervened this month to weaken the yen for the first time in six years. Some emerging economies have done the same.

Brazil's finance minister warned this week of a global "currency war." The Brazilian currency, the real, hit its highest mark since December on Wednesday, threatening exports.

The U.S. dollar has shed 11 percent against a basket of currencies since early June as the Federal Reserve considers printing more money to prop up a sluggish economic recovery.

China's ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Sun Zhenyu, criticized U.S. policy for weakening the dollar despite its key role in the global financial system.

"We are very much concerned about how the U.S. would take practical and responsible measures to prevent the dollar glut and maintain the stability of the currency," Sun said.

The House move is certain to further roil relations with Beijing, which resents the criticism and says the decision about the speed of currency reforms is its alone.

China, the largest foreign buyer of U.S. government debt with holdings of nearly $847 billion as of July, also says its big trade surplus with the United States is due to Americans saving too little and no longer making the goods China sells.

While Obama has not taken a position on the legislation, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said lawmakers worked with the White House to ensure the bill did not violate WTO rules.

After holding the yuan steady against the dollar through the financial crisis, Beijing began to allow for an upward drift against the dollar on June 19.

Since then, the yuan has hit its highest level against the dollar in more than five years but, at just over 2 percent, the gain is far short of what U.S. lawmakers want.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress two weeks ago that Washington would work with Group of 20 nations to push China for faster appreciation but several allies expressed reluctance to join the effort.

G20 leaders are set to meet in Seoul on November 10-11. That would give U.S. senators time to gauge any further moves by China before deciding what to do, with supporters pushing for a vote on the bill after the November 2 election.

ECONOMISTS DOUBT BILL WILL WORK

The House bill allows the Commerce Department to treat "fundamentally undervalued currencies" as an illegal export subsidy so that U.S. companies can request a countervailing duty to offset China's price advantage.

That is expected to encourage steel, paper and other import-sensitive U.S. industries to file more cases. The United States now has countervailing duties on less than 3 percent of its imports from China, which totaled $296 billion in 2009.

Some economists said they understood the politics of the debate but questioned whether the bill would bring back American jobs or prod China to move faster on currency reform.

"We consume a lot. The Chinese save a lot. We're going to run a trade imbalance with them," said Derek Scissors of the Heritage Foundation.

Paul J. Markowski of Global Strategies-Analysis Group/MES Advisers, noting that many millions of Chinese are employed in low-margin export firms, said "China's quest for social stability trumps whatever market discipline would suggest."

China and the United States have a difficult but vital diplomatic relationship, not least in dealing with nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea.

In recent months, Washington and Beijing have also sparred over Chinese government procurement policies, Internet censorship, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and U.S. sympathy for the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

Great. This is just going to make us all poorer, both the US *and* China. Not only that, but China will probably retaliate against protectionism with - more protectionism. Oh, wait - they already have - more protectionism from them already... against chicken.

And so it begins.

Well, at least all the 'fair trade' protectionists/mercantilists on the board can give a big 'hurrah' to legislation such as this - congrats! You've voted with all the democrats!

Oh, and...
Bastiat's famous "PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting."
http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

[wormyguy]

You know what's even better for both Americans "AND" Chinese? If the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.

EDIT: Granted, it would be best of all if we stopped, too.

[cindy25]

replace the income tax with a protective tariff.

[Sentient Void]

You know what's even better for both Americans "AND" Chinese? If the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.

EDIT: Granted, it would be best of all if we stopped, too.


Actually, it would be worse for Americans. The Chinese are propping our damned economy up. People aren't realizing that China keeping their currency so low works to our economic advantage. We gain a higher standard of living because of cheaper goods from China (that people obviously want and value, since they're buying them), and people that would have otherwise worked in manufacturing get other jobs, and can afford goods much cheaper than they otherwise would.

Through the devaluation of their currency - they're essentially subsidizing our entire economy at the expense of the Chinese people. Is it 'wrong' for the Chinese govt to do this to it's people? Hell, yes it is. But does it hurt us? No - it actually works to our advantage - economically.

The answer is more freedom - not more government. It's never more government. We could expand jobs significantly and the economy in general, and even compete much better with China on manufacturing, if we deregulate *heavily*, at least at the federal level. Also, cutting spending enough so that we can further cut taxes will also help - corporate taxes, capital gains, etc - and of course income. A very small federal govt (even within the legitimate confines of the constitution under it's actual enumerated powers) could easily be paid for under a very small, non-targetted tariff on all imports, and user fees.

Hint to every self-proclaimed alleged libertarians - if you're asking for *more* government - you're not a libertarian.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, it would be worse for Americans. The Chinese are propping our damned economy up. People aren't realizing that China keeping their currency so low works to our economic advantage. We gain a higher standard of living because of cheaper goods from China (that people obviously want and value, since they're buying them), and people that would have otherwise worked in manufacturing get other jobs, and can afford goods much cheaper than they otherwise would.

Through the devaluation of their currency - they're essentially subsidizing our entire economy at the expense of the Chinese people. Is it wrong? Hell, yes it is. But does it hurt us? No - it actually works to our advantage - economically.

The answer is more freedom - not more government. It's never more government. We could expand jobs significantly and the economy in general, and even compete much better with China on manufacturing, if we deregulate *heavily*, at least at the federal level. Also, cutting spending enough so that we can further cut taxes will also help - corporate taxes, capital gains, etc - and of course income.

Hint to every self-proclaimed alleged libertarians - if you're asking for *more* government - you're not a libertarian.

In the short term, yes. But in the long term, this kind of thing tends to lead to trade imbalance in favor of China. JMHO.

[wormyguy]

and people that would have otherwise worked in manufacturing get other jobs

I'd suggest you go down to Fall River and ask people about how much they like their "other jobs."

[Sentient Void]

In the short term, yes. But in the long term, this kind of thing tends to lead to trade imbalance in favor of China. JMHO.

So what? Trade deficits *in-and-of-themselves* ultimately don't matter (a high trade deficit itself would not be a problem if the deficits were sustainable, but when the trade deficit comes along with debt accumulation, there is a limit to this process).

Actually, in an ideal libertarian society that us libertarians crave - we'd probably have a *HUGE* trade deficit. IMO, this is preferable.

[Sentient Void]

I'd suggest you go down to Fall River and ask people about how much they like their "other jobs."

I see. And do you suggest that we subsidize and recreate the job for the ice-delivery man as well?

He got another job since his wasn't needed anymore, and we, as well as him (after he found a different job), were all actually wealthier as a result.

And why did they go out of business or lose their jobs? Apparently the people in the market got what they needed, normally from them, elsewhere - at what they perceived a better value. This is how the market works - if you can't compete, you gotta get a job somewhere else. Are you suggesting the goal of capitalism is to protect jobs for workers who can't compete? Or is it to raise the standard of living for all? Personally, I always thought it was the latter.

Any problem with a lack of jobs is because of our insane regulations, and taxes, *NOT* due to voluntary trade.

[wormyguy]

I don't support subsidizing anyone's employment, or tariffs, for that matter. I'm pointing out that your statement - that people who previously worked in manufacturing have since found (presumably superior) "other jobs" is laughably and obviously false.

[Cowlesy]

Don't care. Own some gold and silver, aka, currency debasement protection.


(That's not true, I do care.)

[Anti Federalist]

Any problem with a lack of jobs is because of our insane regulations, and taxes, *NOT* due to voluntary trade.

"Trade" with China is not voluntary trade.

"Trade" with China is trade with an authoritarian prison society built on the backs of over 45 million dead peasants.

[Southron]

He got another job since his wasn't needed anymore, and we, as well as him (after he found a different job), were all actually wealthier as a result.


He probably got a job at Walmart making $7.50/hr. :p

But you have to admit that it's not as if these manufacturing jobs are being lost because of advancing technology. If anything, they are being replaced by sheer numbers of low wage workers and perhaps less machinery.

[Sentient Void]

I'm pointing out that your statement - that people who previously worked in manufacturing have since found (presumably superior) "other jobs" is laughably and obviously false.

Again, people not being able to find jobs is because of excessive regulations, taxes and distortions in the market from the govt. Not because of trying to maximize free trade.

[Sentient Void]

He probably got a job at Walmart making $7.50/hr. :p

Well, if you have no skills in the marketplace - you will make a lower wage until you learn new skills or gain a reputation for hard work, to move up the ladder of affluence. This is where you go back to school and learn a new trade or skill. Or start a businesses offering something people want. Such is how capitalism works (and can still be done, in spite of govt getting in the way of things).


But you have to admit that it's not as if these manufacturing jobs are being lost because of advancing technology. If anything, they are being replaced by sheer numbers of low wage workers and perhaps less machinery.

This is a good thing. This reduces the costs of the goods produced significantly, raising the standard of living for all through a reduced cost of living due to a reduced cost of production.

Remember - money =/= wealth. Higher nominal wages do not make you rich, and printing money doesn't make you rich - nor does raising the minimum wage (the people in Zimbabwe aren't rich, are they?).

What brings increased wealth for all is increased production and increased savings/investment. Increasing free trade and lowering the cost and time of production increases wealth-building. Period. Austrian economics 101.

[Anti Federalist]

What brings increased wealth for all is increased production and increased savings/investment. Increasing free trade and lowering the cost and time of production increases wealth-building. Period. Austrian economics 101.

Which explains why we are in the mess we are in.

We do not produce, we do not save. We do nothing but consume.

Cheap slave made crap imported from authoritarian death states like China encourages this.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

He probably got a job at Walmart making $7.50/hr. :p

But you have to admit that it's not as if these manufacturing jobs are being lost because of advancing technology. If anything, they are being replaced by sheer numbers of low wage workers and perhaps less machinery.

Manufacturing jobs are being lost in America because it is simply cheaper to manufacture outside the US and ship the products and materials in. Between the vast array of hundreds of thousands of regulations, layered taxation, employment mandates, etc. it is just not profitable to operate within the US. I am tired of supposedly people who have at least a superficial understanding of economics, be this economic illiterate through a blind Nationalism / Protectionist rhetoric.

The reason we even have the manufacturing left that we do is because of capital accumulation via machinery which reduces the overrall production costs. If we didn't have that there would be no manufacturing in America. This is really simple folks.

[Stop Making Cents]

Free trade has destroyed this country

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Which explains why we are in the mess we are in.

We do not produce, we do not save. We do nothing but consume.

Cheap slave made crap imported from authoritarian death states like China encourages this.

That is not true. Seriously. Why do I have to educate people on basic economics on RON PAUL FORUMS? :(

[Vessol]

It's disturbing how many people support protectionist trade policies here..

[Sentient Void]

It's disturbing how many people support protectionist trade policies here..

Truth.

At least we get them to come out and expose themselves every once in a while so we see what's really going on in their heads.

Apart from the blatantly economic and utilitarian reasons *for* maximizing free trade as much as possible... the moral issue is - if you're advocating for *more* government, *in any way* - hint, hint - *you're not a libertarian*!

All you protectionistas must admit that you will have voted with the dems and liberal republicans on this matter... congrats!

hrmmm... I'm wondering how Ron Paul voted???

I'll bet you all $1 gajillion-zillion dollars he voted *against it*.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is funny. There have been a ton of ads lately from Feingold up here, allegedly accusing 64,000 jobs lost in WI because of free-trade agreements. I had to laugh a bit and wonder what free-trade agreements, because we have none, and then had to laugh a bit more because if we did have free-trade agreements, and we did lose 64,000 what he is arguing for is subsidies to people who can't compete with better players on the market. For all the railing against "Corporatism" the left does, they are on the biggest peddlers. Let's give public funds to private means just so we don't lose inefficient, and unprofitable enterprises.

I mean, it's better that, then freeing up capital & labor for more productive uses...Remember folks, once a person loses a job they will never get employed again! :p (Always reminds me how people in the 1700s and 1800s worked more than just one trade for their entire lives. Hell Ben Franklin did like 80 different things...)

Anyways, Sentient I wouldn't use the fallacy of association against these guys. After all I support a few of the things Dems and Lib GOP vote for -- like open borders (Even though we are 100% different on the outlook on this issue).

[Sentient Void]

Anyways, Sentient I wouldn't use the fallacy of association against these guys. After all I support a few of the things Dems and Lib GOP vote for -- like open borders (Even though we are 100% different on the outlook on this issue).

Admittedly, I did use the fallacy of association. I'm a little ashamed about it - since I'm not usually one to resort to fallacy, especially the first to do so. So I take it back. Thank you for pointing it out.

Who says I don't support open borders (either way, I still obviously support dismantling the welfare state - but even the welfare state isn't as much of a problem like people make it out to be - IIRC, I think only 4% or so of welfare receivers are illegal immigrants)? Ultimately, more low-skilled workers in the market will result in lower prices for basic goods and services for us higher-skilled workers (in jobs we wouldn't nor many americans would want to take anyways), and a rising standard of living for them as well.

I've come to the conclusion that - no matter what you're talking about... whether it's drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, even immigration - if there's a demand for something... it *will be met*, one way or the other. if it's too highly regulated or outright banned, then it will devolve into a black market surrounded by lower quality and crime. Ah, but I digress on the thread subject... trying not to derail *my own thread*. hahah.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Admittedly, I did use the fallacy of association. I'm a little ashamed about it - since I'm not usually one to resort to fallacy, especially the first to do so. So I take it back. Thank you for pointing it out.

Who says I don't support open borders (either way, I still obviously support dismantling the welfare state - but even the welfare state isn't as much of a problem like people make it out to be - IIRC, I think only 4% or so of welfare receivers are illegal immigrants)? Ultimately, more low-skilled workers in the market will result in lower prices for basic goods and services for us higher-skilled workers (in jobs we wouldn't nor many americans would want to take anyways), and a rising standard of living for them as well.

I've come to the conclusion that - no matter what you're talking about... whether it's drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, even immigration - if there's a demand for something... it *will be met*, one way or the other. if it's too highly regulated or outright banned, then it will devolve into a black market surrounded by lower quality and crime. Ah, but I digress on the thread subject... trying not to derail *my own thread*. hahah.

You misconstrued. It was meant to mean that Democrats and Neo/Lib GOP and myself see this issue through a different lens, but come to the same end conclusion (Though obviously they disagree with my staunch closed border private propertarian views :p).

As long as our borders are publicly held they should be freely traveled. That's my succinct view.

[Sentient Void]

You misconstrued. It was meant to mean that Democrats and Neo/Lib GOP and myself see this issue through a different lens, but come to the same end conclusion (Though obviously they disagree with my staunch closed border private propertarian views :p).

As long as our borders are publicly held they should be freely traveled. That's my succinct view.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Agreed on all counts - especially on closed border private propertarianism. Ultimately, *all* 'rights' are property rights.

Although I hold the deontological / moral / principled arguments in a higher regard myself as well, I often go down the consequentialist / economic / utilitarian road because they seem to be the better sell (Unfortunately).

Some moral arguments are definitely solid catch-alls (like 'pointing out the gun in the room', etc) in certain debates though.

[Anti Federalist]

Manufacturing jobs are being lost in America because it is simply cheaper to manufacture outside the US and ship the products and materials in. Between the vast array of hundreds of thousands of regulations, layered taxation, employment mandates, etc. it is just not profitable to operate within the US. I am tired of supposedly people who have at least a superficial understanding of economics, be this economic illiterate through a blind Nationalism / Protectionist rhetoric The reason we even have the manufacturing left that we do is because of capital accumulation via machinery which reduces the overrall production costs. If we didn't have that there would be no manufacturing in America. This is really simple folks..

Yes, some of us would like to keep a nation, and be free and independent.

It is not profitable to do anything here anymore, and you are right, the only reason we do anything at all is because of the residual blood, sweat and treasure capital of those that have gone before and actually built a nation.

All that's to be thrown on the trash heap and sacrificed on the altar of cheap Wal Marx shit.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, some of us would like to keep a nation, and be free and independent.

It is not profitable to do anything here anymore, and you are right, the only reason we do anything at all is because of the residual blood, sweat and treasure capital of those that have gone before and actually built a nation.

All that's to be thrown on the trash heap and sacrificed on the altar of cheap Wal Marx shit.

So if we just closed all trade to all countries not named the USA, we would be fine economically?

PS: You know you are rejecting Division of Labor, right? If you want to be independent then it means you will live in squalor. Are you prepared for the dramatic decrease in the standard of living to be independent (Though dependent on nature)?

[Anti Federalist]

So if we just closed all trade to all countries not named the USA, we would be fine economically?

PS: You know you are rejecting Division of Labor, right?

We became a nation that surpassed all others in history, with regard to advances in business and industry, living standards and wages.

That was done under system of tariffs, that only went away 20 years after WWII, which is, coincidentally, the time line start of decline to the point where we are right now, broke, with declining wages and living standards, a hollow shell of what the nation once was.

Division of labor and Ricardo's Law does not apply when "trading" with genocidal prison states that built their economy on the backs of tens of millions of dead.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We became a nation that surpassed all others in history, with regard to advances in business and industry, living standards and wages.

That was done under system of tariffs, that only went away 20 years after WWII, which is, coincidentally, the time line start of decline to the point where we are right now, broke, with declining wages and living standards, a hollow shell of what the nation once was.

Division of labor and Ricardo's Law does not apply when "trading" with genocidal prison states that built their economy on the backs of tens of millions of dead.

I think you are mixing up causation here. We became a prosperous nation because we had little to no regulatory bodies and agencies, a miniscule if any at all bureaucratic regime, taxation amounting to low single digit percentage points, and a strong legal framework for property rights. Not because we imposed 30% tax on outside entities.

The reason we have declined is the exact adverse conditions outlined above. We have instituted a large and demanding regulatory body and agencies, we have a large all encompassing bureaucratic regime from the states to the federal government, taxation amounting to over 50% in nearly all states -- add onto layered taxation (Nearly everything we do is taxed), and a loose framework for upholding property rights.

You couldn't miss the mark further if you tried. :p

[Kregisen]

Reading through this entire thread......Sentient Void and Austrian Econ Disciple win.


I've always wondered why countries like china wanted to devalue their currency....yes it brings them more exports, but it's giving them less in return. It helps countries like us.

[Anti Federalist]

You couldn't miss the mark further if you tried. :p

The US government had it's hand in the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek.

That resulted in the ascendancy of Chairman Mao.

We stood by, (some say actively supported) while he instituted programs that led directly to the deaths of over 45 million people.

Once having completed that, and completed the arming and support of two nations that resulted in the deaths of more millions in Vietnam and Korea, including over 100,000 US servicemen, he was rewarded by Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon removed the last anchor holding US currency to any real worth at around the same time, and tariffs were removed.

So now, 30-40 odd years later and here we are, broke, unable to make anything anymore, in debt to our eyeballs, a declining middle class, declining wages, two people working to support the the house and the military/surveillance complex, overreaching empire and an out of control police state at home.

Now, you may be willing to sell off the entire net worth of the United States to a brutal, murderous, communist regime, but I'm not.

If there is going to be any chance of reversing the decline and collapse, then we must do for ourselves, build and make for ourselves as much as possible, that which is needed.

My nation and my freedom is more important than cheap shit at the Wal Marx.

[Dr.3D]

Reading through this entire thread......Sentient Void and Austrian Econ Disciple win.


I've always wondered why countries like china wanted to devalue their currency....yes it brings them more exports, but it's giving them less in return. It helps countries like us.

Sure does, it helps us right out of our industrial base.

[specsaregood]

I posted this in another thread, but looking for insight I figured I might as well post it here too.
Perhaps some here on the side of pro-freetrade, can help clarify if having a unlimited credit card world currency at our beck and call makes any difference in the free-trade vs. tariffs argument?

See below: thanks in advance.



I don't see why it would be a factor. Could you explain that more?
In a system where you have a commodity backed currency or even one with a finite amount of fiat currency; free trade can only cause a limited amount of harm. Because at some point you have to produce something to sell to get money back in order to keep buying. In that type of situation, of course you want little to no tariffs, so you have to only spend as little as possible for goods.

In our current system, we have the ability to print the world's currency. We have no real debt limit and an infinite amount of currency. So the equilibrium that would be in place in the previous example is not in place for the US. We have no need to sell or produce anything or make money from other countries or our trading partners. Because that equilibrium is non-existent we will continue to lose all ability to produce anything to sell (why bother if you don't have to?). We will just keep getting fatter and lazier and ill-equipped to do anything.

I can't imagine how that couldn't be a factor.

Now, I don't think tariffs or protectionism will stave off our loses completely; but think of it as an artificial way of trying to create that equilibrium. Making the imported goods so expensive as to make them less desireable. We end up having increased domestic demand for domestically produced goods. By maintaining internal demand, at least it keeps us from becoming completely lazy and impotent. So if a time comes where we no longer control the world's currency, we can start exporting/producing goods again and acquire wealth.

BUT, on the otherhand, since in essence all the imported goods are "free", one might argue that it wouldn't have any effect as our govt/system would just assume even more debt and print more money and override any barrier those tariffs raised. One might even wonder, that in such a monetary system as ours, would "protectionism"/tariffs hasten the loss of our production capabilities and eventual implosion.

make sense?

[NYgs23]

The fact of the matter is it hurts China more than the US for China to impose protectionism. It doesn't cost us "jobs" if China shuts out imports from the rest of the world; China will then just have to allocate more of its resources to producing those previosly imported goods domestically, so it will have less left over to produce exports. Thus, the more it impedes its imports, the more it will impede its exports. Protectionism hurts the "protected" county most.

[specsaregood]

Protectionism hurts the "protected" county most.

But what if the "protected" country has an unlimited credit card/ debt ceiling that the rest of the world accepts?

[Seraphim]

I think you are mixing up causation here. We became a prosperous nation because we had little to no regulatory bodies and agencies, a miniscule if any at all bureaucratic regime, taxation amounting to low single digit percentage points, and a strong legal framework for property rights. Not because we imposed 30% tax on outside entities.

The reason we have declined is the exact adverse conditions outlined above. We have instituted a large and demanding regulatory body and agencies, we have a large all encompassing bureaucratic regime from the states to the federal government, taxation amounting to over 50% in nearly all states -- add onto layered taxation (Nearly everything we do is taxed), and a loose framework for upholding property rights.

You couldn't miss the mark further if you tried. :p

+1776

In fact I think a lot of the points you AND Anti Federalist made are about policies that came AFTER the Federal Reserve became the Governing body of the USA.

It all (to me) comes down to whether money is built around honest principles or not.

[erowe1]

Sure does, it helps us right out of our industrial base.

It doesn't. But hypothetically if it did, we would have no need for an industrial base if we could get those manufactured goods cheaper and then apply those laborers to something else.

It's like Milton Friedman said, if China wants to send us foreign aid, we might as well let them.

[Anti Federalist]

It doesn't. But hypothetically if it did, we would have no need for an industrial base if we could get those manufactured goods cheaper and then apply those laborers to something else.

It's like Milton Friedman said, if China wants to send us foreign aid, we might as well let them.

And then you are dependent.

Is that really where we want to go?

National Welfare and food stamps on China's dime?

They starved out 45 million (plus) of their own. Some estimates are as high as 60 million.

What makes you think they wouldn't do it to us?

[erowe1]

And then you are dependent.


You mean I don't live on a homestead where I provide everything I want and need for myself, rather than specializing in something I can do better than others and focusing on doing that as a job in exchange for money that I can use to buy goods and services from them that they can make and do better than me?

Yes, in that sense I am dependent. And I think it's better that way.

And just as it's better for me as an individual, it's also better for my family as a household to be dependent in that same sense. And it's also better for my neighborhood, city, county, state, and nation, all to be dependent in that sense. If circumstances changed that forced me, or any of those populations I belong to, to be self-sufficient, we'd be worse off for it.

[Anti Federalist]

You mean I don't live on a homestead where I provide everything I want and need for myself, rather than specializing in something I can do better than others and focusing on doing that as a job in exchange for money that I can use to buy goods and services from them that they can make and do better than me?

Yes, in that sense I am dependent. And I think it's better that way.

And just as it's better for me as an individual, it's also better for my family as a household to be dependent in that same sense. And it's also better for my neighborhood, city, county, state, and nation, all to be dependent in that sense. If circumstances changed that forced me, or any of those populations I belong to, to be self-sufficient, we'd be worse off for it.

I disagree.

This dependency is built on a very precarious prospect, and that is cheap and unlimited amounts of petroleum.

Not to mention that I find it morally repugnant to do business with a murderous regime. All of this talk is based on the assumption that this is two free people, freely exchanging goods and services. That is not the case here, these are nations engaged in warfare and my position is one of non-intervention both in military warfare and economic warfare. Butt out, in other words. Too often the arguments I hear for economic intervention are the same ones I hear for military intervention.

We can all wish it is not the case, but it is.

There will come a time when we'll find we need those steel mills, for whatever reason.

By then it will be too late.

[specsaregood]

Not to mention that I find it morally repugnant to do business with a murderous regime.

Yes, I hate doing business with the US govt as well. :o



my position is one of non-intervention both in military warfare and economic warfare. Butt out, in other words. Too often the arguments I hear for economic intervention are the same ones I hear for military intervention.

AF, I must be confused; because I could have sworn you were on the side of economic intervention.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, I hate doing business with the US govt as well. :o

LoL, yeah you're right.



AF, I must be confused; because I could have sworn you were on the side of economic intervention.

Not in the way it's being presented.

"Free Trade" as it stands right now is nothing more than an economic war being played out, the various "free trade" accords are little more than the economic versions of treaties and alliances that form as war is being played out.

It's a war we're losing. Price for the loss is freedom, liberty and self determination.

My position is that we should have no part of these alliances any more than we should have anything thing to do with empire, nation building and preemptive war.

[tjeffersonsghost]

So what? Trade deficits *in-and-of-themselves* ultimately don't matter (a high trade deficit itself would not be a problem if the deficits were sustainable, but when the trade deficit comes along with debt accumulation, there is a limit to this process).

Actually, in an ideal libertarian society that us libertarians crave - we'd probably have a *HUGE* trade deficit. IMO, this is preferable.

Haha trade deficits don't matter? Trade deficits are preferable? Dude, are you on crack? A trade deficit is going into debt, period. Where do you think the money comes from to compensate for the deficit? Answer, we borrow it.

I import $100 in toys from China and they only import $20 in chickens where do we get the money to pay for the $80 difference? We borrow it. I recommend you take an econ class. We are getting bent six ways from Sunday in our China relationship. Frankly our government has been nowhere near strong enough to deal with this issue.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I think you are mixing up causation here. We became a prosperous nation because we had little to no regulatory bodies and agencies, a miniscule if any at all bureaucratic regime, taxation amounting to low single digit percentage points, and a strong legal framework for property rights. Not because we imposed 30% tax on outside entities.

The reason we have declined is the exact adverse conditions outlined above. We have instituted a large and demanding regulatory body and agencies, we have a large all encompassing bureaucratic regime from the states to the federal government, taxation amounting to over 50% in nearly all states -- add onto layered taxation (Nearly everything we do is taxed), and a loose framework for upholding property rights.

You couldn't miss the mark further if you tried. :p

Whereas I don't disagree with you on our high taxes I think we need to be real on why jobs are going over seas. Slavery and lax environmental standards.

I dont know about you but I kinda like the idea that I can walk outside without inhaling all sorts of shit spewed from the local industries and from car exhausts. I kinda like the idea that I can fish in a local river or lake without fear of it blowing up like a nuke bomb.

I also kinda like the idea that we dont allow slavery here.

Taxes are just as high in China you realize this right? They also have VAT taxes which maybe even puts their taxes higher than us. This isnt about taxes, its about slavery.

[RM918]

These crazy fucks are going to get us both into a nuclear war.

[nobody's_hero]

Haha trade deficits don't matter? Trade deficits are preferable? Dude, are you on crack? A trade deficit is going into debt, period. Where do you think the money comes from to compensate for the deficit? Answer, we borrow it.

I import $100 in toys from China and they only import $20 in chickens where do we get the money to pay for the $80 difference? We borrow it. I recommend you take an econ class. We are getting bent six ways from Sunday in our China relationship. Frankly our government has been nowhere near strong enough to deal with this issue.

What kind of strength do you mean? If you mean to say that they don't have the moral fortitude to stop borrowing endlessly in a vain effort to maintain the myth of a consumer economy, then, yes, I'd say they are cowards. If you mean 'strength' as in 'power', they have plenty of that.

I'd like to see us get back to a balance. What I propose is a reduction in domestic taxation and an increase in tariffs (elimination of taxation altogether would be awesome, but so long as there is taxation, it ought to be fair). Tariffs should be uniformly applied to all nations' imports, and not directed at a specific imported good (like tires). We like to talk about 'free trade' a lot, but when our domestic industries get taxed into oblivion while the mere mention of tariffs is met with cries of "protectionism", it's hard to balance things out.

The cynic in me wants to believe this is being done on purpose. Government isn't interested in keeping things fair. Ultimately, it wants you to not have to work. We don't need no stinkin' factories. —Why? So Nanny State can take care of you, of course. Why has it established an income tax system that punishes productivity? Why are unemployment benefits damn near permanent now? It wants you to learn to lick the hand that feeds.

Of course, with this, the government was interested in making it look like it's actually doing something before an election, so they pulled this stunt for votes and campaign funding. I'm not about to praise them for suddenly fighting the system they created over the past century.

Anti-fed makes some great points on dependency, though. It's not a bad idea to be able to do things yourself. That doesn't mean you can't trade with people, but we aren't trading with China. China is giving us the money to buy stuff, and then they make the stuff to buy. Some people say this means that our standard of living is going to remain high, but bills come with due dates.

[erowe1]

Not to mention that I find it morally repugnant to do business with a murderous regime. All of this talk is based on the assumption that this is two free people, freely exchanging goods and services. That is not the case here, these are nations engaged in warfare and my position is one of non-intervention both in military warfare and economic warfare. Butt out, in other words. Too often the arguments I hear for economic intervention are the same ones I hear for military intervention.


I can definitely respect that. But if you don't want to do business with China, you don't have to. And if you want to get other people to join you in boycotting China, you should be able to convince them to go along with you voluntarily. If you can't convince them to do that, then you should respect their right to engage in the trade that you think they're wrong to engage in without using the state to influence their decisions by imposing a tariff. It seems to me that your position is actually one of interventionism.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Haha trade deficits don't matter? Trade deficits are preferable? Dude, are you on crack? A trade deficit is going into debt, period. Where do you think the money comes from to compensate for the deficit? Answer, we borrow it.

I import $100 in toys from China and they only import $20 in chickens where do we get the money to pay for the $80 difference? We borrow it. I recommend you take an econ class. We are getting bent six ways from Sunday in our China relationship. Frankly our government has been nowhere near strong enough to deal with this issue.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Our trade deficits have nothing to do with the debt. Imagine Toys R' Us, buying 500$ worth of goods to import from Vietnam. This doesn't mean the US is 500$ in debt. It means Toys R' Us spent 500$ of their own dollars, to bring in these goods, the same as if they spent 500$ to import goods from Washington to Florida. You can call it leveraging if Toys R'Us decides to go into debt themselves, but that isn't debt incurred by the US Government.

Why are people so vociferous on this issue when they have no fucking clue what they are talking about?

[Sentient Void]

Haha trade deficits don't matter? Trade deficits are preferable? Dude, are you on crack? A trade deficit is going into debt, period. Where do you think the money comes from to compensate for the deficit? Answer, we borrow it.

I import $100 in toys from China and they only import $20 in chickens where do we get the money to pay for the $80 difference? We borrow it. I recommend you take an econ class. We are getting bent six ways from Sunday in our China relationship. Frankly our government has been nowhere near strong enough to deal with this issue.

Don't tell me to take an econ class, or that I'm 'on crack' - because you obviously have absolutely *no* damned clue what you're talking about.

A trade deficit, in and of itself, is *not* going into debt. That's utterly *wrong*. If I go to the sandwich shop and buy a sandwich from them, and give them cash for it - I would be considered to be in a 'trade deficit' with them. I didn't give them a sandwich or any other good in return. They have what they wanted (cash, to hold on to or to buy other things with from *others*), and I have what I wanted (a sandwich, which they could make better or more conveniently than I could myself). At the same time - I'm *not in debt* to them. We in the US are in massive debt for other reasons - because credit and debt has been incentivized in the market due to loose monetary policies and low interest rates of the Fed as well as government regulations.

Here's some econ education for *you*. I thought this was well put overall so I'll just source and then quote it for you.

The Trade Deficit Widening Should be Praised:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2569360/posts


We live in an odd world. All too often, good news is turned on its head and made out to be bad news. Such good news that is often dragged through the mud is the trade deficit widening. Each time that it is reported to widen, the news organizations and the protectionists come out and trash the news. But what is so bad about having a trade deficit?

For starters, a trade deficit occurs when a nation imports more than it exports. Currently, the U.S. imports more than it exports. Protectionists argue that more imports than exports harms American jobs and business. However, such arguments fail to understand the law of supply and demand.

When a nation has higher imports than exports that sends a couple of important signals.

First, it indicates that it is cheaper to meet demand by importing goods from other places. Division of labor across the globe creates efficiencies that are realized when imports help meet the demand of those in the marketplace. There is nothing wrong with this. It simply means that there is such a high demand for certain goods that companies around the world are finding ways to help meet that demand.

Second, the current trade deficit in the United States indicates that it is cheaper to produce goods outside of the nation than inside of it. This could be due to all of the following factors: labor unions, high minimum wages, taxes, government regulations, etc. While protectionists argue that jobs are lost because of outsourcing to companies overseas, they are never looking at the causes of those jobs leaving. The production of certain products is simply not worth the cost in America. Importing the goods from overseas is a good thing in this case as it saves the consumer money.

Just think of the trade deficit this way. If a consumer goes to a deli to purchase a sandwich, does a trade deficit occur between the person consuming the sandwich and the company that makes it? If we followed the protectionist arguments, it would. But they would never say so. When the company hands the sandwich off to the consumer, they are not receiving a sandwich back in return. Both parties though receive what they want. The company wants to make money and the consumer wants to spend money on a sandwich. No trade deficit here.

And the same goes with the United States. Consumers wanted their goods at a certain price and overseas exporters were able to meet demand. There is no true deficit in the relationship between the companies and the U.S. consumers that do business with them.

Besides, as long as the federal government is going to impose outrageous taxes on American businesses, enforce a minimum wage that prices workers out of the workplace, and support the thuggery of Big Labor, the supposedly evil trade deficit that delivers cheap goods will remain commonplace and deliver cheaper but quality goods to all consumers.

As for some more explanation and deeper detail as to why trade deficits can be good, and why they can be preferable in a libertarian paradise (as a symbol of economic might and prosperity)...

Perpetual trade Deficits Can be Good:
http://mises.org/daily/2702

[Sentient Void]

I can definitely respect that. But if you don't want to do business with China, you don't have to. And if you want to get other people to join you in boycotting China, you should be able to convince them to go along with you voluntarily. If you can't convince them to do that, then you should respect their right to engage in the trade that you think they're wrong to engage in without using the state to influence their decisions by imposing a tariff. It seems to me that your position is actually one of interventionism.

^^ **THIS**. Well put.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Don't tell me to take an econ class, or that I'm 'on crack' - because you obviously have absolutely *no* damned clue what you're talking about.

A trade deficit, in and of itself, is *not* going into debt. That's utterly *wrong*. If I go to the sandwich shop and buy a sandwich from them, and give them cash for it - I would be considered to be in a 'trade deficit' with them. I didn't give them a sandwich or any other good in return. They have what they wanted (cash, to hold on to or to buy other things with from *others*), and I have what I wanted (a sandwich, which they could make better or more conveniently than I could myself). At the same time - I'm *not in debt* to them. We in the US are in massive debt for other reasons - because credit and debt has been incentivized in the market due to loose monetary policies and low interest rates of the Fed as well as government regulations.



You may not be on crack (I was kidding when I said that hard to tell through a computer) but you really do need to take a basic econ class preferably not a Keynesian (although that is all they teach in school).

If you go into the shop to buy a sandwich and the sandwich is $5 but you only have $1 because that is all you produced, where are you going to get the extra $4 to pay for the sandwich? THAT sir is a trade deficit, where you buy more than you produce. You based your assumption on having produced enough to have the full $5 to spend on that sandwich. But the fact is you haven't produced enough.

So the question is where do you get the money to cover the deficit for the lack of production? You borrow it of course. Trade deficits rob a nation of wealth and are not a good thing at all. I urge you to reconsider your thoughts.

As far as the separate issue as far as causes for why we ship jobs over seas, Mises is only partially right. If you want to know the real reasons Ill be glad to give them to you...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You may not be on crack (I was kidding when I said that hard to tell through a computer) but you really do need to take a basic econ class preferably not a Keynesian (although that is all they teach in school).

If you go into the shop to buy a sandwich and the sandwich is $5 but you only have $1 because that is all you produced, where are you going to get the extra $4 to pay for the sandwich? THAT sir is a trade deficit, where you buy more than you produce. You based your assumption on having produced enough to have the full $5 to spend on that sandwich. But the fact is you haven't produced enough.

So the question is where do you get the money to cover the deficit for the lack of production? You borrow it of course. Trade deficits rob a nation of wealth and are not a good thing at all. I urge you to reconsider your thoughts.

As far as the separate issue as far as causes for why we ship jobs over seas, Mises is only partially right. If you want to know the real reasons Ill be glad to give them to you...

You know you are espousing bullshit that was rightfully dismantled piece by piece in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Century. You are espousing Mercantilism.

There is no inherent debt accumulated with trade deficits. I don't know why you are assuming that businesses who import goods don't have the money to buy the products. If that were the case, then every business who imports goods would be leveraged to the hilt. It simply isn't so, and even if it was it doesn't mean the US Government has incurred those debts, it means those private businesses have. They can file for bankruptcy. I still don't understand how you believe private interests account for Government debt. The way Government gets itself into debt is through spending.

There are probably a small percentage of debt accumulated via subsidized loans to businesses, but this I assure you does not account for nearly what you think it does. Your real reasons are phantom illusions reminscent of 18th Century British Mercantilists, the same guys we fought a revolution to get rid of. So, no, I don't think you know what you are talking about. How about you come back when you actually know something about economics? There is in no area where the Government intervenes a positive effect on the economy -- this too goes for your protectionist rhetoric. I wonder what you think the trade deficit is like from manufacturing defunct states like say -- 1920s Montana towards states who were manufacturing giants like Michigan and Ohio. You think Montana racked up massive debt because they were importing more than exporting? That importing was bad for them?

Hell I have trade deficits with lots of businesses. I am better for it.

[teacherone]

it's not debt true...

however a negative trade balance means that a growing amount of our currency is in the hands of foreign nations that could unload it at any time.

so our negative trade balance could come to harm us.... but at the moment we benefit greatly.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

it's not debt true...

however a negative trade balance means that a growing amount of our currency is in the hands of foreign nations that could unload it at any time.

so our negative trade balance could come to harm us.... but at the moment we benefit greatly.

I see that as a positive. It at least superficially makes the Government double-take at some of it's ridiculous QE measures. If all our money were held solely within America they wouldn't give a shit. They would crank up QE much much more than we have now. After all they have the means to control the entire populace. We can't exactly control China, Taiwan, other entities directly.

[tjeffersonsghost]

You know you are espousing bullshit that was rightfully dismantled piece by piece in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Century. You are espousing Mercantilism.

There is no inherent debt accumulated with trade deficits. I don't know why you are assuming that businesses who import goods don't have the money to buy the products. If that were the case, then every business who imports goods would be leveraged to the hilt. It simply isn't so, and even if it was it doesn't mean the US Government has incurred those debts, it means those private businesses have. They can file for bankruptcy. I still don't understand how you believe private interests account for Government debt. The way Government gets itself into debt is through spending.

There are probably a small percentage of debt accumulated via subsidized loans to businesses, but this I assure you does not account for nearly what you think it does. Your real reasons are phantom illusions reminscent of 18th Century British Mercantilists, the same guys we fought a revolution to get rid of. So, no, I don't think you know what you are talking about. How about you come back when you actually know something about economics? There is in no area where the Government intervenes a positive effect on the economy -- this too goes for your protectionist rhetoric. I wonder what you think the trade deficit is like from manufacturing defunct states like say -- 1920s Montana towards states who were manufacturing giants like Michigan and Ohio. You think Montana racked up massive debt because they were importing more than exporting? That importing was bad for them?

Hell I have trade deficits with lots of businesses. I am better for it.

Heh, your view is so flawed it's not even funny. If this is what they teach at Mises I want no part. If trade deficits are so good then why produce anything? Why not just print money and consume Chinese crap? I mean the bigger the trade deficit the better right? If trade deficits are a good thing then why is our economy not booming? I mean we borrow all sorts of money from the Chinese to consume their shit. We borrow all sorts of money from the Arabs to use their oil.

Government controls the money, that is the link between government and private debt. The government keeps printing money to accommodate for the leakage in the losses via our trade deficit. If the government didnt keep printing to make up for the losses we would have defaulted a long time ago and many of these businesses with money wouldnt have it for long.

We need to produce things and sell things to countries like China who have money. We cant keep borrowing money from China to fund our trade deficits with China. We can't keep borrowing money from the Arabs to fund our energy habits. We need to turn these strip malls into factories and start selling our shit to countries with money. We need to have trade surpluses, not deficits. We need to get our wealth back and it is 100% impossible to be a wealthy nation while borrowing to support our consuming habits.

[specsaregood]

We need to produce things and sell things to countries like China who have money. We cant keep borrowing money from China to fund our trade deficits with China.
...
We need to get our wealth back and it is 100% impossible to be a wealthy nation while borrowing to support our consuming habits.

The funny thing about that is, our money (USD) is a commodity in its own right. You can't buy oil without first acquiring US dollars, which means countries need us to "borrow" from them. It kind of changes the equations. Clever bastards thought this sh*t up.

[BenIsForRon]

Division of labor isn't universally a good thing. The are other factors that can usurp its benefits.

Take local food at the farmers market for example. It's fresher, usually more nutritious, and more money ends up in the hands of the farmer. There are less middle men between you and the farmer (labor is divided less), but the other factors lead to a better product.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Division of labor isn't universally a good thing. The are other factors that can usurp its benefits.

Take local food at the farmers for example. It's fresher, usually more nutritious, and more money ends up in the hands of the farmer. There are less middle men between you and the farmer (labor is divided less), but the other factors lead to a better product.

You just described Division of Labor. Division of Labor merely means that as individuals we specialize in given fields. The farmer obviously specializes in farming. Without Division of Labor it means that as individuals we have to be all things at all times. We have to be a clothmaker to make and repair our cloths, we have to be a farmer to feed ourselves, we have to learn mechanics, we have to learn blacksmithing, we have to learn carpentry, etc. Without Division of Labor we barely subsist. I don't think you know what you are talking about to be honest.

As for TJefferson I will get back to you in a few. Busy playing FFXIV :p

[Anti Federalist]

You just described Division of Labor. Division of Labor merely means that as individuals we specialize in given fields. The farmer obviously specializes in farming. Without Division of Labor it means that as individuals we have to be all things at all times. We have to be a clothmaker to make and repair our cloths, we have to be a farmer to feed ourselves, we have to learn mechanics, we have to learn blacksmithing, we have to learn carpentry, etc. Without Division of Labor we barely subsist. I don't think you know what you are talking about to be honest.

As for TJefferson I will get back to you in a few. Busy playing FFXIV :p

Division of labor with the farmer down the road?

Or with the farmer on the other side of the globe that grows stuff "cheaper" because the two interposing governments play funny business with the money, subsidize the transportation around the world and, oh yeah, has slaves to work the field?

Not to mention the fact that maybe it's not such a good idea to rely on something critical to survival, food, on a supply chain so tenuous.

[Vessol]

Division of labor with the farmer down the road?

Or with the farmer on the other side of the globe that grows stuff "cheaper" because the two interposing governments play funny business with the money, subsidize the transportation around the world and, oh yeah, has slaves to work the field?

Not to mention the fact that maybe it's not such a good idea to rely on something critical to survival, food, on a supply chain so tenuous.

In a real free market, it would be highly unprofitable to buy food that is grown halfway across the world when it can also be grown where you live.

As you correctly imply, the reason this happens now is because of regulations, trade policies and all sorts of interventionalist nonsense.

Why don't we actually work on getting rid of those instead of trying to create more interventionalist nonsense.

I'll give an example of why trade tariffs are a bad thing. I'm not economically trained, but it's common sense IMO.

Let's say there is a tariff on potato's that come from Ireland. Potato's normally cost 5$ to ship and grow, but the tariff adds a 3$ tax to that, right? So 8$ total.

Now the American farmer who grows Potato's can grow them and sell them easily at 3$ for a profit. However because he has no competition from oversea's products, he can easily raise his price to 7$ and get away with it. Completely riding himself from market initiative to stay competitive.

Who loses? The consumer, because of the tariff laws now has to pay 4$ extra for potato's.

Yeah..extremely simplistic, sorry.

Oh and I agree. I think that division of labor is important, but some level of self-sufficiency is very important.

[malkusm]

Aww shucks, AF, I'm kind of disappointed in you in this thread....fact is that we've inflated our currency, taxed, regulated, and become self-deluded to believe that a "living wage" is FAR beyond what it actually is, to get to this point. China has no such self-delusion.

Fact is that if you didn't buy any goods that weren't made under questionable work conditions, you'd be buying a lot less than you think. We've made it impossible to do business here, so naturally, businesses go elsewhere - to places with dubious ethical standards - to which the government responds with tariffs.

Nevertheless, some of the businesses would have outsourced the jobs anyway, with the rapid advance in technology creating an integrated global economy, and a more educated (at least on paper) workforce here in the States demanding more technical/skilled/tertiary jobs.

I don't really know if I'm making a cohesive point....just responding to some things I've seen in the thread.

[tjeffersonsghost]

As you correctly imply, the reason this happens now is because of regulations, trade policies and all sorts of interventionalist nonsense.

Why don't we actually work on getting rid of those instead of trying to create more interventionalist nonsense.



Im going to go into reality and then my theory so bear with me. First reality. In reality we do have regulations, many of them are environmental and safety regulation. 2nd we have taxes. These are the two reasons or as I will point out, so called reasons why businesses leave.

The "regulations" reason is just a simple way to say I want to pollute the hell out of the place and not have to worry about who suffers because of it. This is how it used to be and this is even how it still is to an extent. 70s and before if you lived in a big city you woke up every morning to a Beijing style fog. Many people wouldnt open their windows because of this fog created from car emissions and factory emissions. Think you could ever swim in a lake or river? Many of them were polluted so bad that you couldnt have fire anywhere near them because they would explode. In fact a few actually lakes and rivers actually did.

Sadly today our so called regulations are so laxed that we still have people dying from pollution. Anyone see Erin Brokovich? Here in S Florida we have a cancer cluster within a 5 mile radius in a place called "The Acreage". Is out environment as near as bad as China's? Not at all. I kinda like the idea that I can still fish in most lakes and rivers or even take a swim. I like the idea that I can breath the air without worrying about getting sick. But to keep things clean it costs businesses extra money because they will have to hire more people and equipment to do it. So this is reason one why they leave.

Reason two is the tax reason. Whereas the environmental is a real reason why they leave the tax reason is actually a bunch of shit. When you add up ALL of China's taxes including their VAT taxes (which are as high as 17%) you will actually find China's taxes are just as high as our own. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.

The real reason why they leave is slavery. They love that cheap labor. That is what this is all about. Don't kid yourself to think anything different.

So right now we have to compete with a country that says we don't give a shit what you do to our environment and we don't care about working conditions or how you pay our employees. $.20 cents a day? No problem. The playing field is 100% tilted towards China and its not right. So how do you solve it?

Well you can get rid of the minimum wage, end all environmental regulations, and get rid of all working condition regulations.

Or

You can tariff the hell of out China to level the playing field.

For those of you who say big government shouldnt have the power to do this and it is just protectionist I will say that our founding fathers disagree


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'd rather fund government through tariffs than an income tax. An income tax taxes you whether you like it or not. A tariff doesnt affect you unless you choose to buy imported goods. So I say get rid of the 16th Amendment and use tariffs to fund government. Yes government would have to shrink DRAMATICALLY for tariffs to fund it, but hey, what else can I say.

[Vessol]

@tjeffersonsghost

Are you advocating environmental regulations? Do you honestly believe that the world would be trashed if the great saviors in Washington didn't create regulations?

If you're advocating such market interventionalism, then the debate is over as there is nothing to debate. You believe in interventionalism and partially-centrally planned economies and I believe in free markets. In a free market, businesses regulate themselves. And don't you dare try to make the "But the Gilded Age!" argument, that arguement was well destroyed ages ago.