PDA

View Full Version : More "Free Trade" Fail




Anti Federalist
10-19-2010, 08:43 PM
Posted at LEW ROCKWELL . COM of all places!

Even LRC is getting the message about "free trade" with China!!


The Number One U.S. Export To China: Waste Paper and Scrap Metal

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/exporting-waste-to-china.html

Historians tell us that by the very end of the Roman Empire, goods were pouring into Rome from all over the known world, but about the only thing being sent out of Rome was human waste and garbage. America has not yet reached that point, but we are certainly well on our way. In 2010, the number one U.S. export to China is "scrap and trash." Yes, you read the correctly. The number one thing that China buys from us is our garbage. According to author Clyde Prestowitz, China's number one export to the U.S. is computer equipment (nearly $50 billion) while our number one export to them is waste paper and scrap metal (approximately $8 billion). When it comes to world trade, China is literally wiping the floor with the United States. In August, the U.S. trade deficit with China set a new one month record of $28 billion dollars. Our insane trade policies are making China (along with several of our other "trade partners") incredibly wealthy, and the U.S. government ends up begging China to lend that money back to us to fund the exploding U.S. national debt. That just isn't stupidity – that is insanity.

The truth is that our "twin deficits" are literally bankrupting this nation. We are completely and totally destroying the economic future of our children and grandchildren.

But hey, the Vikings beat the Cowboys, Dancing With The Stars is heating up and we all have a bunch of DVDs to get caught up on so why worry ourselves, right?

Unfortunately, the reality is that we can't afford to be "comfortably numb" any longer if we hope to have any kind of a future.

It is time to wake up people.

Sadly, a significant percentage of young Americans these days can't even tell you what a "trade deficit" is.

If you don't believe this, just try a little experiment some time. Just go up to a few young Americans on the street and ask them to define "trade deficit" for you.

But fortunately, the vast majority of the readers of this column are quite informed. Unfortunately, I still don't believe that most of you really understand how incredibly dangerous the trade deficit is.

So just how dangerous is the trade deficit? Well, world famous investor Warren Buffett once put it this way....

"The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil... Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them."

Between 2000 and 2009, America's trade deficit with China skyrocketed nearly 300 percent. Wealth, factories and jobs are leaving the United States at an astounding pace. The danger that this represents to our economy is so vast that it is hard to even describe.

If you ever find yourself in a debate with proponents of "free trade," you can almost always get them to eventually admit that "free trade" will raise the standard of living for workers in countries like China while significantly lowering the standard of living for U.S. workers, but that this must be done for the good of the emerging "global economy."

Of course U.S politicians never really mention this nasty little fact when they give speeches about how wonderful our trade policies are. They never really get around to mentioning that "free trade" is one of the key foundations of "globalism" and that we are being merged into a one world economy.

Today, American workers do not just compete with other American workers. Instead, U.S. workers now find themselves in direct competition for jobs with workers in China that makes less than a tenth of what an American worker would make. In China, a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour. Apple iPhones are manufactured in China by workers making about 293 dollars a month (and that was after a big raise).

So exactly how long do you think you and your family would be able to survive on 293 dollars a month?

But unfortunately, millions more Americans will lose their jobs and millions more Americans will be forced to take a cut in pay in order to compete in the new global economy.

According to a disturbing new study by the Economic Policy Institute, if the trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

The sad truth is that it is NOT a good time to be a blue collar worker in America. If your job does not get offshored or outsourced, then it is likely to be made obsolete by computers and automation.

The need for manual labor is rapidly declining in today's world. For example, there is a Japanese firm called Fanuc, Ltd. that actually has industrial robots manufacturing other industrial robots in a “lights out” factory.

How bizarre is that?

But things wouldn't be quite as bad for U.S. workers if China was not cheating so badly. The truth is that they just do not play the game fairly.

For instance, it is estimated that the Chinese government is keeping China's currency valued about 40 percent lower than it should be. This is essentially a de facto subsidy to China's exporters.

There has been a little bit of rumbling in the Obama administration about this in recent weeks, but it is quite unlikely that they will push China too far on this issue. After all, the Obama administration desperately needs China to keep loaning us massive quantities of money so that we can keep funding our runaway debt.

If you sit back and objectively analyze the facts, it quickly becomes undeniable that China is beating the living crap out of us economically. In fact, one prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040 if current trends continue.

This all could have been turned around a decade or two ago, but now China has us by the throat. At any time, China could decide to start selling off massive quantities of U.S. Treasuries. At any time, China could decide to cut off our supply of rare earth elements (of which they have a virtual monopoly).

China is now even the number one supplier of components that are critical to the operation of U.S. defense systems. How smart were we to allow that to happen?

It is a direct threat to national security for China to have so much leverage over us. But you rarely hear anyone talking about this.

The truth is that trade with China is not a left/right issue. As I have written about previously, it is impossible for any self-respecting conservative to justify our trade policies with China and it is impossible for any self-respecting liberal to justify our trade policies with China.

Yet very few current members of the U.S. Congress ever discuss the possibility of sweeping changes to our trade policies.

So we will continue to lose thousands of factories, we will continue to lose millions of jobs and we will continue to see the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world accelerate.

So do any of you think that I am wrong about this? Please feel free to leave a comment on my website.

Reprinted with permission from the Economic Collapse Blog.

October 19, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Economic Collapse Blog

angelatc
10-19-2010, 09:01 PM
Maybe we should fill the garbage with smallpox!

Stary Hickory
10-19-2010, 09:06 PM
Free trade is not the problem it's purchasing goods with debt and inflation that is killing us. If this was stopped then we would have to trade real things, unless the Chinese simply want to work for free. The Chinese economy is also one huge cancerous ball of malinvestment thanks to our inflationary policies. They produce for inflationary dollars and debt. Their entire economy is structured around this model...which is unworkable and unsustainable unless they will lend to us forever and never expect repayment(this is essentially working for free).

awake
10-19-2010, 09:08 PM
I read this today, It has the all the right flavor for public consumption and digestion. This is a conservative viewpoint. It ignores any sound economic principles in favor of emotional calls to protectionist fortification and subsequent trade war.

The Chinese save, America does not. No savings , no increased capital per person and increasing production.

The Chinese do not fund wars all over the world, America does.

The Chinese program of lending money to countries to buy what they make is an idea that America has used for many years - it results in forgiving the loans and giving away the goods. You do not build wealth by giving away goods.

Excessive legislation and regulation is great for growing the ranks of lawyers, but lawyers don't produce anything, they consume.

The knowledge economy over full of teachers and professors is worthless in comparison to a producing economy.

You will never be able to compete with China if you're going to provoke a war with them.

The only chance America has is to return to a free market, a free market not yet tried, the freest that can be produced by a people who originally ran with the idea. But war is so much easier for a nation obsessed with it.

awake
10-19-2010, 09:24 PM
Stop borrowing to buy.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-19-2010, 10:26 PM
I read this today, It has the all the right flavor for public consumption and digestion. This is a conservative viewpoint. It ignores any sound economic principles in favor of emotional calls to protectionist fortification and subsequent trade war.

I especially liked the right flavor for public consumption and digestion part. I agree it is not the trade policy, it is all of the other policies creating the massive trade deficit.

It sure as heck would be neat to see how much more suffering government can create thereby proving us right by enacting protectionist trade policy. I'd love to see China give U.S. the finger and stop buying dollars.

Just pull the damn splinter out. We don't have to pick at it for years.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-19-2010, 11:12 PM
Love the bit about capitalization of Industry as a negative. The whole point of capitalism is to continually increase the productive capacity of the economy. This guy wants us stinted in some 14th Century stagnation. Automation = bad. This sort of filth usually comes from the proclaimed socialists.

It was probably not a good time to be a horse-cart maker, or driver in the early 20th Century either. I suppose we should have stopped technological and productive growth because they were losing their jobs../sarc

Kregisen
10-20-2010, 12:54 AM
China's number one export to the U.S. is computer equipment (nearly $50 billion) while our number one export to them is waste paper and scrap metal (approximately $8 billion).

Have you never heard of comparative advantage?


If you ever find yourself in a debate with proponents of "free trade," you can almost always get them to eventually admit that "free trade" will raise the standard of living for workers in countries like China while significantly lowering the standard of living for U.S. workers, but that this must be done for the good of the emerging "global economy."

False. Imposing tariffs and quotas hurts OUR economy....it helps the specific workers while hurting the rest of the country more-so.

It's like driving around stealing $1 from every house.....at the end of the day, you just stole $10,000, and spent $500 on gas.....so you gained $9,500, while the rest of your town lost $10,000, equaling a $500 loss on your town. Same thing on tariffs, except you also greatly hurt other countries too.


Have you taken intro courses to economics before?

sratiug
10-20-2010, 08:01 AM
Have you never heard of comparative advantage?



False. Imposing tariffs and quotas hurts OUR economy....it helps the specific workers while hurting the rest of the country more-so.

It's like driving around stealing $1 from every house.....at the end of the day, you just stole $10,000, and spent $500 on gas.....so you gained $9,500, while the rest of your town lost $10,000, equaling a $500 loss on your town. Same thing on tariffs, except you also greatly hurt other countries too.


Have you taken intro courses to economics before?

But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

silverhandorder
10-20-2010, 08:10 AM
I can see the point of OP. Enacting protectionist policies will immediately make us feel the hurt and we will have to deregulate. Risky move never underestimate stupidity.


But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

Increasing outside tariff will protect industry while hurting the consumer.

Stary Hickory
10-20-2010, 08:51 AM
But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

It still does not matter if we do not inflate and use debt to consume there is nothing to trade China in exchange. Tariffs vs Internal taxation are really moot. The problem has and always will be inflationism and debt.

If you take a look at one market for instance, autos. If internal regulation and taxes make make cars more expensive than imports even with tariffs and transportation costs included then people will purchase cars from China. And so we now have displaced workers and extra money in the economy as a result of cheaper cars. These workers must do something else productive, they may get absorbed into other areas where workers are in demand or they may be part of a new service or product that just became economically viable due to the extra wealth available due to cheaper cars.

The end result is more goods and services available for Americans. When we target specific industries they may go overseas, and in it's stead something else opens up. If we do a blanket policy for the entire country it does not mean all jobs go overseas. You see without debt and inflation the Chinese will demand goods and services in return. Tariffs and Internal taxes are virually identical in that they are only means of revenue for the government. Taxation and regulation of specific industries can drive them overseas where such obstacles are not present but in a world without inflationism and debt we would still be forced to offer a compensating service or good to those who provide us with what that industry previously produced in the US.

sratiug
10-20-2010, 08:57 AM
I can see the point of OP. Enacting protectionist policies will immediately make us feel the hurt and we will have to deregulate. Risky move never underestimate stupidity.



Increasing outside tariff will protect industry while hurting the consumer.

Consumers and producers are the same people. Subsidizing imports hurts consumers because it restricts their production because taxes must be higher here to make up for the subsidy to foreign producers that pay zero American taxes. Ending the tax subsidy to imports would benefit us all if the total tax remained constant.

Kregisen
10-20-2010, 09:20 AM
But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

Right. Obviously you'd have to minimize both internal taxation and tariffs.

erowe1
10-20-2010, 09:26 AM
What in the world is this doing on LRC? I'm surprised to see them touting this view. Should I not be?

sratiug
10-20-2010, 09:45 AM
...

If you take a look at one market for instance, autos. If internal regulation and taxes make make cars more expensive than imports even with tariffs and transportation costs included then people will purchase cars from China. And so we now have displaced workers and extra money in the economy as a result of cheaper cars. These workers must do something else productive, they may get absorbed into other areas where workers are in demand or they may be part of a new service or product that just became economically viable due to the extra wealth available due to cheaper cars.
...

There is no "extra" wealth due to "cheaper" cars if the price difference is just the disparity in taxation. The cars are the same price - the tax is higher on one than the other. The tax not paid on the cars will be stolen from other American workers to make up the difference. The workers will face the same obstacles to their success in any other jobs they might find in the US, so those jobs will be few and far between.

Wouldn't it make more sense to end American internal taxation and use that "extra" wealth to buy more American and foreign products? Free trade starts at home.

Brooklyn Red Leg
10-20-2010, 11:09 AM
What in the world is this doing on LRC?

I was gonna ask the same thing. This reads like a Protectionist piece, which is as anti-Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist as you can get.

Inkblots
10-20-2010, 11:14 AM
Love the bit about capitalization of Industry as a negative. The whole point of capitalism is to continually increase the productive capacity of the economy. This guy wants us stinted in some 14th Century stagnation. Automation = bad. This sort of filth usually comes from the proclaimed socialists.

It was probably not a good time to be a horse-cart maker, or driver in the early 20th Century either. I suppose we should have stopped technological and productive growth because they were losing their jobs../sarc

Won't someone please think of the buggy-whip manufacturers?!?

Stary Hickory
10-20-2010, 12:19 PM
There is no "extra" wealth due to "cheaper" cars if the price difference is just the disparity in taxation. The cars are the same price - the tax is higher on one than the other. The tax not paid on the cars will be stolen from other American workers to make up the difference. The workers will face the same obstacles to their success in any other jobs they might find in the US, so those jobs will be few and far between.

Wouldn't it make more sense to end American internal taxation and use that "extra" wealth to buy more American and foreign products? Free trade starts at home.

The cars are indeed cheaper. If they were not consumer would not purchase them. You assume that the tax not payed on cars will be stolen from other consumers...that is something additional and we are not here to talk about what the government might or might not do.

You are arguing against taxation in all forms tariffs and internal taxes...which is really missing the point entirely. Because tariffs and internal taxation are essentially identical in what they do, garner revenue for the US government. You seem to think an artificial man made geographical border on a paper map somehow changes the laws of economics. I ensure you it does not.

sratiug
10-20-2010, 12:32 PM
The cars are indeed cheaper. If they were not consumer would not purchase them. You assume that the tax not payed on cars will be stolen from other consumers...that is something additional and we are not here to talk about what the government might or might not do.

You are arguing against taxation in all forms tariffs and internal taxes...which is really missing the point entirely. Because tariffs and internal taxation are essentially identical in what they do, garner revenue for the US government. You seem to think an artificial man made geographical border on a paper map somehow changes the laws of economics. I ensure you it does not.

The cars are the same price. The government's charge for allowing you to buy the American car is higher. I don't think the border makes any difference, the tax should be the same on either side of the border. "Free traders" are the ones that think the taxes should be different and that somehow free trade is more important internationally than at home.

If every product from every country cost the same and we charge Americans a 10% tax to buy American products and zero tax to buy foreign products why would anyone believe the market would not put America out of business?

Anti Federalist
10-20-2010, 12:45 PM
What in the world is this doing on LRC? I'm surprised to see them touting this view. Should I not be?

Because even LRC realizes that you cannot remain a free and independent nation by going into massive, crushing debt, and selling your entire industrial base off to, a communist regime who's "business model" is built on the backs of 50 million murdered Chinese citizens and state prison labor.

Everything else is just blarg, blarg, blarg.

erowe1
10-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Because even LRC realizes that you cannot remain a free and independent nation by going into massive, crushing debt, and selling your entire industrial base off to, a communist regime who's "business model" is built on the backs of 50 million murdered Chinese citizens and state prison labor.


Are you sure about that? That's news to me. Although I can't argue with the fact that this article was put up there.

Anti Federalist
10-20-2010, 01:04 PM
Are you sure about that? That's news to me. Although I can't argue with the fact that this article was put up there.

No, I can't be sure of that fact, any more than I could be sure that it wasn't renegade nationalist hackers that put that article up.

But you'd think LRC would take it down if that was the case, right? ;)

Look, I live and work in the new world order of globalized bureaucracy.

If you think the fedgov is abusive, tyrannical, and unresponsive, wait til you start dealing with what I have to deal with.

I know what globalized "free trade" is and what it does.

Do Not Want.

And neither should any right thinking, freedom loving person.

erowe1
10-20-2010, 01:07 PM
No, I can't be sure of that fact, any more than I could be sure that it wasn't renegade nationalist hackers that put that article up.

But you'd think LRC would take it down if that was the case, right? ;)


I honestly don't know. I'm not sure what LRC's policies are. They might have some issues where they put up articles on both sides, and this may be one. I figured someone who knows more about LRC would know.

I do know that mises.org has articles explaining that the trade deficit is not a problem. And I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the two sites had the same take on economics.

Anti Federalist
10-20-2010, 11:56 PM
///

Bossobass
10-21-2010, 07:59 AM
The capital required to fuel the 'Chinese Miracle' came from Chinese savings accounts?

Our trade policies with China are not the problem, but instead, blah, blah is?

1973 Davey Rockefeller visits China and writes a glowing Op-Ed piece on the astounding success of Mao's 'experiment'.

1974 The US loses the war in Vietnam, where every weapon used by the VC came from China. That same year, strong lobbying to bestow Most Favored Nation status upon China begins.

1978 The mass exodus of the Ohio Valley steel production, the "Essen of the western hemisphere" to Asia begins with lightning speed, sending all of the US' top engineers to Asia to train Asians to produce steel.

As always, labor is blamed.

1980 Reagan administration hands China MFN.

1983 Steel production in the Ohio Valley is virtually gone leaving entire towns (Ambridge, PA, named after US Steel's American Bridge division, was left a virtual ghost town with 3 million square feet of production facilities rusting and abandoned, for one example) unable to afford the electric bill for street lights.

At the same time, the Fed drove interest rates to 21%, while the Reagan administration sucked every dime of available capital to deficit finance the military industrial complex, overtly and covertly, making sure there would be no entrepreneurs to provide domestic competition to the move to Asia.

(What Ron Paul called 'exporting your inflation' in his debates with Greenspan.)

And there are people here who actually believe any of this was market driven?

Or, that the ocean of capital required to build the infrastructure and production capacity over swampland came from Chinese savings?

Gimme a shotgun.

Bosso

specsaregood
10-21-2010, 08:19 AM
I never got an answer to my questions about how if the typical free trade argument fails in a world where you have a worldwide fiat currency that is treated like a commodity but in fact is just debt and an limitless ability to produce it. Maybe the fact that this is on LRC means others are starting to wonder about that too....

Southron
10-21-2010, 09:19 AM
I'm surprised. I thought LRC worshiped the market.

Pericles
10-21-2010, 10:47 AM
But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!

Pericles
10-21-2010, 10:51 AM
No, I can't be sure of that fact, any more than I could be sure that it wasn't renegade nationalist hackers that put that article up.

But you'd think LRC would take it down if that was the case, right? ;)

Look, I live and work in the new world order of globalized bureaucracy.

If you think the fedgov is abusive, tyrannical, and unresponsive, wait til you start dealing with what I have to deal with.

I know what globalized "free trade" is and what it does.

Do Not Want.

And neither should any right thinking, freedom loving person.

/\ This /\

Brian4Liberty
10-21-2010, 11:04 AM
Tariffs vs Internal taxation are really moot.

Of course we all agree with your points about inflation, but Tariffs vs. Income Tax is not moot even if inflation was no longer a problem. Internal taxation is a burden on every single person, while a flat tariff is only a burden on importers and exporters. Internal taxation also makes every single person a target of an out of control IRS.

Anti Federalist
10-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Thanks for posting this.

I would only add that the "plan" went back prior to 1973.

Nixon's ending of the "gold standard" along with his and Kissinger's visits set the stage for what you, very accurately, describe as happening next.

Actually the start of all this began with our double dealing with Chiang kai Shek and the Nationalist Chinese during and just after WWII.

That, of course, led to the death and destruction of the Korean War, the partition of Korea, the "Great Leap Forward" under Mao and the millions of dead that resulted from that and Viet-nam, with it's millions of dead.

All so that the global collective crowd could sell out and gut this nation financially.

"Free Trade" my aching ass. :mad::mad::mad:


The capital required to fuel the 'Chinese Miracle' came from Chinese savings accounts?

Our trade policies with China are not the problem, but instead, blah, blah is?

1973 Davey Rockefeller visits China and writes a glowing Op-Ed piece on the astounding success of Mao's 'experiment'.

1974 The US loses the war in Vietnam, where every weapon used by the VC came from China. That same year, strong lobbying to bestow Most Favored Nation status upon China begins.

1978 The mass exodus of the Ohio Valley steel production, the "Essen of the western hemisphere" to Asia begins with lightning speed, sending all of the US' top engineers to Asia to train Asians to produce steel.

As always, labor is blamed.

1980 Reagan administration hands China MFN.

1983 Steel production in the Ohio Valley is virtually gone leaving entire towns (Ambridge, PA, named after US Steel's American Bridge division, was left a virtual ghost town with 3 million square feet of production facilities rusting and abandoned, for one example) unable to afford the electric bill for street lights.

At the same time, the Fed drove interest rates to 21%, while the Reagan administration sucked every dime of available capital to deficit finance the military industrial complex, overtly and covertly, making sure there would be no entrepreneurs to provide domestic competition to the move to Asia.

(What Ron Paul called 'exporting your inflation' in his debates with Greenspan.)

And there are people here who actually believe any of this was market driven?

Or, that the ocean of capital required to build the infrastructure and production capacity over swampland came from Chinese savings?

Gimme a shotgun.

Bosso

Brian4Liberty
10-21-2010, 11:34 AM
And there are people here who actually believe any of this was market driven?


Reminds me of a quote from Charlie Gasparino the other day. He said out of all of his days working on Wall St. and CNBC, he had only ever met one "free market" capitalist. They are all corporatists, working in partnership with government to screw over others and make the markets less "free".

We all know that there is a huge divide between the ideals of free markets and what we have in reality. I hate to be the one to break it to everybody, but terms like "free market" and "free trade" have been completely co-opted by the global corporatists. They depend upon the idealists for ideological cover and support.

Anti Federalist
10-21-2010, 08:39 PM
///

Fox McCloud
10-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Internal taxation is a burden on every single person, while a flat tariff is only a burden on importers and exporters. Internal taxation also makes every single person a target of an out of control IRS.

(emphasis added)

WRONG!

The tariff effects consumers, either through direct higher prices for foreign goods, or the American industries holding US consumers hostage through the power of the state via said tariff (again higher prices). Quotas, tariffs, embargoes, what have you...they all do the same thing; they force artificially high prices for foreign goods which only helps establish local monopolies in the United States---the sugar industry is a prime example of this. Due to the sugar quota, the US pays many times the world price of sugar which has a very large impact on just the food industry alone; who's to say what other industries are stepped on due to just a single quota.

Protectionism always leads down the same road; higher prices, less selection, lower quality, and a poorer society.

To suggest that tariffs only impact one sector of society is patently ridiculous.

sratiug
10-21-2010, 09:39 PM
(emphasis added)

WRONG!

The tariff effects consumers, either through direct higher prices for foreign goods, or the American industries holding US consumers hostage through the power of the state via said tariff (again higher prices). Quotas, tariffs, embargoes, what have you...they all do the same thing; they force artificially high prices for foreign goods which only helps establish local monopolies in the United States---the sugar industry is a prime example of this. Due to the sugar quota, the US pays many times the world price of sugar which has a very large impact on just the food industry alone; who's to say what other industries are stepped on due to just a single quota.

Protectionism always leads down the same road; higher prices, less selection, lower quality, and a poorer society.

To suggest that tariffs only impact one sector of society is patently ridiculous.

All of what you said applies even more to internal taxation, because Americans pay the cost of the tariff, but foreigners do not pay either our internal taxes or the tariff.

Brian4Liberty
10-21-2010, 09:43 PM
(emphasis added)

WRONG!


That was a discussion of internal taxes vs. tariff. Did you miss that, or are you intentionally skipping that part?

With regards to the price of a foreign good, it doesn't matter if it's a tax on your income that reduces your purchasing power, or an import tariff that raises the price. You are taxed either way.

Fox McCloud
10-21-2010, 10:55 PM
Of course we all agree with your points about inflation, but Tariffs vs. Income Tax is not moot even if inflation was no longer a problem. Internal taxation is a burden on every single person, while a flat tariff is only a burden on importers and exporters. Internal taxation also makes every single person a target of an out of control IRS.

Right, but the way you worded it, it made it seem like one only taxed a smaller segment of society while one taxed a broader segment; that's what I found to be inaccurate.


All of what you said applies even more to internal taxation, because Americans pay the cost of the tariff, but foreigners do not pay either our internal taxes or the tariff.

I don't know why you incessantly put out this strawman; foreigners pay taxes on their own goods as well, so it's a moot point; even it it were a point, it's just a justification for shifting taxes entirely away from corporations and onto individuals and reducing taxes, not coddling our own industries.

RedStripe
10-22-2010, 07:35 AM
But hey, the Vikings beat the Cowboys, Dancing With The Stars is heating up and we all have a bunch of DVDs to get caught up on so why worry ourselves, right?

Unfortunately, the reality is that we can't afford to be "comfortably numb" any longer if we hope to have any kind of a future.

It is time to wake up people.

Sadly, a significant percentage of young Americans these days can't even tell you what a "trade deficit" is.

If you don't believe this, just try a little experiment some time. Just go up to a few young Americans on the street and ask them to define "trade deficit" for you.


It's easy to get all righteous and complain about how the "sheeple" don't care about issue X, but the fact is that it really doesn't matter whether or not the average person is aware of the trade deficit, because there's basically nothing they can do about it - and that's how the system is designed to operate.

Don't "worry" about the deficit - start setting the foundation of an alternative system today in your own life, in areas that you can influence.

The only strategy for changing macro policy (ignoring the problems of unintended consequences and the immense energy involved) is to convince the stakeholders and institutions which actually have power that it is in their best interest to adopt the policies you prefer. Since the interests of the powerful and the interests of the relatively powerless tend to be adverse, it's hard to accomplish this without stimulating mass unrest and public sentiment. Trade policy probably divides too many potential coalitions to make it a realistic target of a mass movement.

Brian4Liberty
10-22-2010, 10:20 AM
Right, but the way you worded it, it made it seem like one only taxed a smaller segment of society while one taxed a broader segment; that's what I found to be inaccurate.


I see. Yeah, the "burden" I was talking about is the burden of actually doing paperwork and directly paying the government, with the threat of harsh, no due process penalty if you don't do everything right (or even worse, it's so complex that anyone can be prosecuted if the "authorities" feel like it). Basically the IRS would be off the backs of your average individual.

sratiug
10-22-2010, 11:00 AM
...

I don't know why you incessantly put out this strawman; foreigners pay taxes on their own goods as well, so it's a moot point; even it it were a point, it's just a justification for shifting taxes entirely away from corporations and onto individuals and reducing taxes, not coddling our own industries.

Foreigners pay no American taxes on their production. True or false?

Fox McCloud
10-22-2010, 02:59 PM
I see. Yeah, the "burden" I was talking about is the burden of actually doing paperwork and directly paying the government, with the threat of harsh, no due process penalty if you don't do everything right (or even worse, it's so complex that anyone can be prosecuted if the "authorities" feel like it). Basically the IRS would be off the backs of your average individual.

ok, so now we're talking tax collection vs taxation; I thought you were talking about taxation; turns out you're talking about collection.

In which case, yes, a tariff puts the tax collection burden on a smaller segment of society, though that could have detrimental effects in and of itself, as well.


Foreigners pay no American taxes on their production. True or false?

still a strawman, and that's not what I was addressing--if you read my post in this thread (or any of the others), then you wouldn't state this.

If you want to stick with such childish rhetoric, then fine: "foreigners pay in-nation taxes on their production. True or false?"

Anti Federalist
10-22-2010, 03:31 PM
I see. Yeah, the "burden" I was talking about is the burden of actually doing paperwork and directly paying the government, with the threat of harsh, no due process penalty if you don't do everything right (or even worse, it's so complex that anyone can be prosecuted if the "authorities" feel like it). Basically the IRS would be off the backs of your average individual.

That ^^^

sratiug
10-22-2010, 03:53 PM
still a strawman, and that's not what I was addressing--if you read my post in this thread (or any of the others), then you wouldn't state this.

If you want to stick with such childish rhetoric, then fine: "foreigners pay in-nation taxes on their production. True or false?"

Childish? Look dickhead, I don't care what taxes they pay in China, it's none of my business and none of my concern. You quoted my post where I said


All of what you said applies even more to internal taxation, because Americans pay the cost of the tariff, but foreigners do not pay either our internal taxes or the tariff.

You replied with this nonsense in which, I agree, you did not address my post that you quoted. That's why I asked you the simple follow up question and ignored your meaningless point that they pay foreign taxes to support their local dictators so they can buy more missiles to aim at us.

I don't know why you incessantly put out this strawman; foreigners pay taxes on their own goods as well, so it's a moot point; even it it were a point, it's just a justification for shifting taxes entirely away from corporations and onto individuals and reducing taxes, not coddling our own industries

I don't even believe in corporations. And coddling foreign multi-national corporations is what we are doing now.

Fox McCloud
10-22-2010, 05:21 PM
Childish? Look dickhead, I don't care what taxes they pay in China, it's none of my business and none of my concern. You quoted my post where I said


You replied with this nonsense in which, I agree, you did not address my post that you quoted. That's why I asked you the simple follow up question and ignored your meaningless point that they pay foreign taxes to support their local dictators so they can buy more missiles to aim at us.

Thanks for ignoring my argument in its entirety. You can't ignore the taxes that other nations pay (corporate, sales tax, or what have you); that affects prices just as much as as internal taxation affects the cost of our goods--your argument is completely bizarre in that it seems to pretend foreign taxation doesn't exist at all, and thus, since we have taxation here, we have to erect a tariff to "even the playing field." It's just a very strange almost backdoor argument for Mercantilism, which only helps establish domestic monopolies and increase prices...but hey, I don't know, maybe protectionism is your thing.


And coddling foreign multi-national corporations is what we are doing now.

If we were doing that, we'd be directly subsidizing them...which, we're not; instead we have quotas, tariffs, embargoes, and subsidies for in-nation companies (such as the massive farming subsidies); this isn't coddling foreign industry; it's coddling our own.

Anti Federalist
10-22-2010, 07:22 PM
///

phill4paul
10-22-2010, 07:31 PM
///

Just getting into this thread...

2 cents worth...

No such thing as free trade when competition can be destroyed or co-opted by governmental mandates.

This is done every single day in America.

Carson
10-22-2010, 09:09 PM
There hasn't been free trade for decades.

The government uses the Federal Reserve like we do our credit cards.

When they don't have money they have them create it out of thin air.


That in turn leads to a devaluation of the dollars we had in circulation.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/followthemoney/RobertSahrcurrencyvalue.jpg


See how the introduction of fiat money during times of war in the past devalued the currency. Now it appears they are at war with all of us.

Not only can the government counterfeit money and devalue the dollar, without and audit others can.

Wouldn't it be funny if you could do the same thing? Maybe a new set of golf clubs would hold you for a while. Maybe you could even buy politicians that would come up with creative ways to borrow from your central bank and the profits could end up mushrooming you into the stratosphere.

Do we even still control our own government?

If it was to happen that they were to start losing control of their counterfeiting, could terrible things happen?

Will we be able to believe their story or will their be a lot of unanswered questions like 9-11?

Anyway; We haven't had free trade in decades. It seems closer to stealth socialism to me. Look at the chart above at how much money has been sucked out of the pockets of the people world wide that have tried to bank on the dollar. Should they have been tricked into paying for...

I can't really think of any good examples. It would seem to me the way it is being financed adds up to socialism no matter what the project.

It seems they have counterfeited the entire money supply many, many times over.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/followthemoney/Supersingle640x537.jpg



P.S. Or for the short answer:

There is no free trade when there is a third party involved ripping the other two off.

Anti Federalist
10-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Excellent post, thanks.

The answer is, of course, no.

"Free Trade" is the excuse being used to crush us economically, and keep runaway inflation under control long enough to get the job done.



http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/followthemoney/RobertSahrcurrencyvalue.jpg

Do we even still control our own government?

Michigan11
10-22-2010, 09:54 PM
I think the problem with so-called freed trade as we know it today, or as others refer to free trade, is that we are in a globally rigged system, using nothing but printed up fiat and every government is also subsidizing this or that, how the hell can you say there is free trade. I've come to the conclusion that "Real Free Trade" is a utopian idea, nothing more, unless you have global freedom and sound money.

ClayTrainor
10-22-2010, 10:00 PM
Free Trade = Free Markets.

You either support the idea or you don't... If you believe some form of taxation is the solution to a problem the state created, than you need to seriously consider re-thinking through your position, imo.

It's the equivalent to saying, "if we just let the mafia take more money from those people..."

Michigan11
10-22-2010, 10:07 PM
Free Trade = Free Markets.

You either support the idea or you don't... If you believe some form of taxation is the solution to a problem the state created, than you need to seriously consider re-thinking through your position, imo.

It's the equivalent to saying, "if we just let the mafia take more money from those people..."

It's possible free trade can only work, and I believe will work within a nation or other set of boundaries that are all dealing with the same money and regulations/government, etc...

Michigan11
10-22-2010, 10:10 PM
Another way to think about trying to pull off free trade as an argument, you'd have to have truly free money and markets, otherwise the rules change to pure market manipulation.

Michigan11
10-22-2010, 10:18 PM
How about for those that need visualization as to realize what this so-called free trade looks like. Imagine adding all the other nations as states, so now let's say we have 200 states in the United States...

Picture the difference, they are all in different landscape, but let's say an ocean is a river and all states are close together, with their current differences. The money is all different and nobody can get a handle on the exchange rate, supposedly they all just like to fluctuate wildly, for no reason(so everybody thinks). That alone, is enough to cause major trade problems in and of itself.

Now imagine the same map of states using one currency "gold". For a certain job a floor would be reached, and than comparative advantage would take over from there. That floor wouldn't be so low considering one currency and what that one currency would buy.

That is all I'm saying...

driller80545
10-22-2010, 10:22 PM
You have to calculate in the greed factor. It is the only real constant. It can't be controlled or regulated and it can't be made to go away.

Knightskye
10-22-2010, 11:32 PM
Don't we pay China the interest on our debt? Isn't that more dangerous than people buying products from there?

Anti Federalist
10-23-2010, 12:58 PM
///

Anti Federalist
10-24-2010, 06:30 PM
Dueling bumps with Sentient Void.

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 07:08 PM
Dueling bumps with Sentient Void.

lol, bastard. ;P

I bumped my old thread to counter your pro-protectionist thread so it was even. You just made it 'not even' again.

Dripping Rain
10-24-2010, 07:17 PM
5 stars for rationality

Sentient Void
10-24-2010, 07:32 PM
5 stars for rationality

There is no moral, economic, nor historical rationality or basis for this position. The only arguments I see are purely emotional arguments.

1 Star for irrationality.

Jordan
10-24-2010, 07:46 PM
But if the tariff on Chinese goods is less than the internal tariff on American goods caused by internal taxation and regulation, the market is distorted to favor imports, leading to massive trade deficits at the expense of American producers. This is what is happening.

Bingo!

US tariffs into our borders average 4%. Internal taxes, regulation, etc? Multiples of that.