Ron Paul Against Tariffs

[ProBlue33]

In the news this week Ron Paul came out against Tariffs.

What I want to discuss is there place for tariffs in this new global economy.
My thoughts are this, don't put tariffs on goods of any nations that have 1st world living conditions, so none on places like Canada or the UK or Germany places that pay there workers good benefits and fair wages. However that changes for me if the products are from nations that have poor wages and benefits for example Mexico, China and India. I am all for free markets, but is the playing field equal if a worker is forced to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day for $1/hr building cheap whatever?

I guess this is one area I disagree with both Trump and Ron, tariffs need only to create a level playing field, not punish a nation that pays there people good wages but maybe just does it better, in capitalism America will win some of those but it might lose some too, and that's ok.

But if Trump can stop factories from leaving America and setting up in Mexico/China/India that is a good thing.

Oh My does that make Ron Paul a globalist:eek:

[nikcers]

In the news this week Ron Paul came out against Tariffs.

What I want to discuss is there place for tariffs in this new global economy.
My thoughts are this, don't put tariffs on goods of any nations that have 1st world living conditions, so none on places like Canada or the UK or Germany places that pay there workers good benefits and fair wages. However that changes for me if the products are from nations that have poor wages and benefits for example Mexico, China and India. I am all for free markets, but is the playing field equal if a worker is forced to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day for $1/hr building cheap whatever?

I guess this is one area I disagree with both Trump and Ron, tariffs need only to create a level playing field, not punish a nation that pays there people good wages but maybe just does it better, in capitalism America will win some of those but it might lose some too, and that's ok.

But if Trump can stop factories from leaving America and setting up in Mexico/China/India that is a good thing.

Oh My does that make Ron Paul a globalist:eek:
Free trade isn't why the dollar isn't worth what it used to be, wanting to "level the playing field" after the dollar loses its value because we printed too much money is globalism. Wanting free trade so the dollar doesn't lose more value is not globalism.

[Swordsmyth]

There is more than one way to tilt the playing field, plenty of first world countries tariff us and/or subsidize their industries.

Ron is not a globalist he is just misguided about defensive tariffs.

[nikcers]

There is more than one way to tilt the playing field, plenty of first world countries tariff us and/or subsidize their industries.

Ron is not a globalist he is just misguided about defensive tariffs.
Plenty of "first world countries" don't allow you to own a gun.

[Swordsmyth]

Plenty of "first world countries" don't allow you to own a gun.
And I oppose their policy on that just as I do their tariffs and subsidies but since it only affects their citizens there is nothing I can do about it, their trade policies hurt Americans and we can defend ourselves with our trade policy.

[Superfluous Man]

In the news this week Ron Paul came out against Tariffs.

What I want to discuss is there place for tariffs in this new global economy.
My thoughts are this, don't put tariffs on goods of any nations that have 1st world living conditions, so none on places like Canada or the UK or Germany places that pay there workers good benefits and fair wages. However that changes for me if the products are from nations that have poor wages and benefits for example Mexico, China and India. I am all for free markets, but is the playing field equal if a worker is forced to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day for $1/hr building cheap whatever?

I guess this is one area I disagree with both Trump and Ron, tariffs need only to create a level playing field, not punish a nation that pays there people good wages but maybe just does it better, in capitalism America will win some of those but it might lose some too, and that's ok.

But if Trump can stop factories from leaving America and setting up in Mexico/China/India that is a good thing.

Oh My does that make Ron Paul a globalist:eek:

It makes Ron Paul a libertarian. You don't just disagree with him on some marginal issue. You disagree with him on his whole philosophy.

But yes, it also makes him a globalist, provided you define that correctly. His globalism is not the globalism of worldwide government, but the globalism of a worldwide unregulated market, without governments interfering with the global interactions that will naturally take place as individuals around the world seek their own interests. One of the features of this free market would even be a market-based non-fiat global currency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac

[nikcers]

It makes Ron Paul a libertarian. You don't just disagree with him on some marginal issue. You disagree with him on his whole philosophy.
LOL yeah but libertarian is a bad word. Libertarianism is even worse then globalism because libertarianism doesn't work because capitalism doesn't work because free trade doesn't work because the world isn't real, its a reality show, truth is treason in an empire of lies.

[Matt Collins]

Tariffs are tax

[kahless]

In the news this week Ron Paul came out against Tariffs.

What I want to discuss is there place for tariffs in this new global economy.
My thoughts are this, don't put tariffs on goods of any nations that have 1st world living conditions, so none on places like Canada or the UK or Germany places that pay there workers good benefits and fair wages. However that changes for me if the products are from nations that have poor wages and benefits for example Mexico, China and India. I am all for free markets, but is the playing field equal if a worker is forced to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day for $1/hr building cheap whatever?

I guess this is one area I disagree with both Trump and Ron, tariffs need only to create a level playing field, not punish a nation that pays there people good wages but maybe just does it better, in capitalism America will win some of those but it might lose some too, and that's ok.

But if Trump can stop factories from leaving America and setting up in Mexico/China/India that is a good thing.

Oh My does that make Ron Paul a globalist:eek:

I agree with them on many issues but on this I am unsure what to believe about their intentions. Supporting globalist policies to the detriment of American citizens is sure starting to look like they are globalists and are betraying the American people on this issue.

The organizations that have funded the Pauls including Rand's biggest donor to date actively campaign for free trade including actively campaigning against Trump's tariffs. Disappointing.

[CaptUSA]

In the news this week Ron Paul came out against Tariffs.

What I want to discuss is there place for tariffs in this new global economy.
My thoughts are this, don't put tariffs on goods of any nations that have 1st world living conditions, so none on places like Canada or the UK or Germany places that pay there workers good benefits and fair wages. However that changes for me if the products are from nations that have poor wages and benefits for example Mexico, China and India. I am all for free markets, but is the playing field equal if a worker is forced to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day for $1/hr building cheap whatever?

I guess this is one area I disagree with both Trump and Ron, tariffs need only to create a level playing field, not punish a nation that pays there people good wages but maybe just does it better, in capitalism America will win some of those but it might lose some too, and that's ok.

But if Trump can stop factories from leaving America and setting up in Mexico/China/India that is a good thing.

Oh My does that make Ron Paul a globalist:eek:

Always beware of progressives wanting to use the government to "level" a "playing field". :rolleyes:

[CaptUSA]

Ron is not a globalist he is just misguided about defensive tariffs.

Ron is 100% right on this. I'm just sorry that you haven't come to understand why, yet.

[CaptUSA]

It makes Ron Paul a libertarian. You don't just disagree with him on some marginal issue. You disagree with him on his whole philosophy.

But yes, it also makes him a globalist, provided you define that correctly. His globalism is not the globalism of worldwide government, but the globalism of a worldwide unregulated market, without governments interfering with the global interactions that will naturally take place as individuals around the world seek their own interests. One of the features of this free market would even be a market-based non-fiat global currency.

^This! Trade globally; govern locally.

You get in real bad shape when you allow progressives to dictate what terms mean. The term "globalist" as we refer to it means those pushing for global governance. We are against that. But the progressives want to change the term to include global trade - we are 100% for that~!

[Ender]

Ron is 100% right on this. I'm just sorry that you haven't come to understand why, yet.

Exactly.

Maybe start with a few of Ron's books on economy & freedom?

End the Fed

A Foreign Policy of Freedom

Liberty Defined

The Revolution: A Manifesto

Gold, Peace, and Prosperity

The Case for Gold

[ProBlue33]

I hear what you guys are saying, but I really think sometimes government needs to protect it's citizenry from making self sufficiency errors.
Let me explain, I will use garlic as an example, you can buy grown in America garlic or grown in China garlic. One is 1/4 the price. We need to grow our own food supplies here we need the info-structure and everything to support it, we should NOT be depending on China for food at any discount. There may come a time when we can't depend on that product getting here and we need to be able to look after our own. So government seeing the bigger picture slaps a 50% tariff on Chinese garlic and gives American garlic growers big tax breaks to help level the playing field for our own long term good.

Sorry I might have a little different philosophical outlook than some here, America making itself self-sufficient and not depending on other nations has to be a good thing, especially if those nations are far away. But I am not talking about vegetables imported from Canada into North Dakota for cheaper, because there dollar is down this month.

Is steel in this equation, that is for you to answer, but food staples sure are.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ron is not a globalist he is just misguided about defensive tariffs.

Ron favors free trade because he is a liberal, contra a nationalist/economic ignoramus.

[Ender]

Ron favors free trade because he is a liberal, contra a nationalist/economic ignoramus.

A CLASSIC LIBERAL- not the mentality that people today now associate with the word.

[r3volution 3.0]

A CLASSIC LIBERAL- not the mentality that people today now associate with the word.

The nationalists and socialists co-opted the term about a century and a half ago.

For what it's worth, I've decided to continue using it in its original and now anachronistic sense.

People who fundamentally hate human liberty should not be allowed to call themselves liberals.

[Zippyjuan]

A CLASSIC LIBERAL- not the mentality that people today now associate with the word.

Liberals favor the steel tariffs because it will support union (high paying) jobs.

[r3volution 3.0]

Liberals favor the steel tariffs because it will support union (high paying) jobs.

Yea, the "liberty" to make a good living through the robbery of your neighbors.

...but no, to properly use the English language, these people are called socialists, not liberals.

[Ender]

The nationalists and socialists co-opted the term about a century and a half ago.

For what it's worth, I've decided to continue using it in its original and now anachronistic sense.

People who fundamentally hate human liberty should not be allowed to call themselves liberals.

Well, my grandfather is a classic liberal & he's a bit younger than 150 years. ;)

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, my grandfather is a classic liberal & he's a bit younger than 150 years. ;)

Well, that makes 5 of us.

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo9tXbsAcpA

[kahless]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo9tXbsAcpA

I absolutely agree with what Ron said about the Fed and WTO in this video. I just wish he could have explained how we deal with China currency manipulation as it relates to trade, China blocking our imports, their high tariffs on American imports and their reselling US companies intellectual property. What about the decimation of our manufacturing base Ron due to imbalanced trade?

If tariff's are not the solution, then what is? The status quo of Americans continue to take a beating is not a solution.

[nikcers]

I absolutely agree with what Ron said about the Fed and WTO in this video. I just wish he could have explained how we deal with China currency manipulation as it relates to trade, China blocking our imports, their high tariffs on American imports and their reselling US companies intellectual property. What about the decimation of our manufacturing base Ron due to imbalanced trade?

If tariff's are not the solution, then what is? The status quo of Americans continue to take a beating is not a solution.
How do you beat China in a currency war? We just need better fiscal policy and the market would handle itself, we can't fight gresham's law. "Thiers' Law" is how we win a currency war.

[Superfluous Man]

America making itself self-sufficient and not depending on other nations has to be a good thing, especially if those nations are far away.

This is positively ludicrous.

You must have this place confused with Democrat Underground.

[Zippyjuan]

I absolutely agree with what Ron said about the Fed and WTO in this video. I just wish he could have explained how we deal with China currency manipulation as it relates to trade, China blocking our imports, their high tariffs on American imports and their reselling US companies intellectual property. What about the decimation of our manufacturing base Ron due to imbalanced trade?

If tariff's are not the solution, then what is? The status quo of Americans continue to take a beating is not a solution.

Is China blocking our exports?

https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2016/12/9/saupload_value-US-exports-to-China-198501-201610.png

As for the value of their currency, that is a bit trickier. Normally when we buy things from a country, they pay us in dollars and that is usually converted back into their currency so they can use it to buy something else- from us again or to pay workers or whatever. Converting our dollars to their currency should raise the value of their currency relatively to ours (they are demanding more of their currency while increasing the number of dollars available). And as the value of their currency starts to rise, the cost of their exports to us rises and the price of our exports goes down- over time if both economies are relatively the same the trade should start to balance out over the long term (other factors also impact a trade deficit).

But they don't want that to happen- their competitive advantage would shrink. So they don't convert their dollars into yuan. Instead, they make dollar denominated investments- like buying US Treasury notes- our debt. That keeps the relative value from changing as much as it normally would.

Our stronger currency makes imports cheaper (with any country) and our exports more expensive- encouraging a larger trade deficit.

What can we do? We could try to dump dollars on the international market and try to drive down the value of the dollar- and cause price inflation here.

[Swordsmyth]

Is China blocking our exports?

https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2016/12/9/saupload_value-US-exports-to-China-198501-201610.png

As for the value of their currency, that is a bit trickier. Normally when we buy things from a country, they pay us in dollars and that is usually converted back into their currency so they can use it to buy something else- from us again or to pay workers or whatever. Converting our dollars to their currency should raise the value of their currency relatively to ours (they are demanding more of their currency while increasing the number of dollars available). And as the value of their currency starts to rise, the cost of their exports to us rises and the price of our exports goes down- over time if both economies are relatively the same the trade should start to balance out over the long term (other factors also impact a trade deficit).

But they don't want that to happen- their competitive advantage would shrink. So they don't convert their dollars into yuan. Instead, they make dollar denominated investments- like buying US Treasury notes- our debt. That keeps the relative value from changing as much as it normally would.

Our stronger currency makes imports cheaper (with any country) and our exports more expensive- encouraging a larger trade deficit.

What can we do? We could try to dump dollars on the international market and try to drive down the value of the dollar- and cause price inflation here.

Do they or don't they have high tariffs and other trade barriers?

Our exports to them should be much higher.

[Zippyjuan]

Do they or don't they have high tariffs and other trade barriers?

Our exports to them should be much higher.

Why? How high should they be? What should they be buying more of?

[Swordsmyth]

Why? How high should they be?
As high as they would be without the excessive tariffs and other trade barriers.




What should they be buying more of?
The things they put excessive tariffs on and that they block with their other trade barriers.

[Zippyjuan]

As high as they would be without ht excessive tariffs and other trade barriers.




The things they put excessive tariffs on and that they block with their other trade barriers.

What things are those?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Zippyjuan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're also advocating for other nations to also follow this advice. Basically, there are some products that are so crucial that one nation should not depend upon another for that product. In particular, international trade in food should probably be curtailed, and each nation should produce it's own.

If we did that, things like fresh fruits and vegetables would only be available part of the year. And be a lot more expensive. A lot of our seafood is imported. The US makes a lot of money exporting food. Money wise, we export far more than we import. Imports give us much more variety and low prices though.

[angelatc]

Liberals favor the steel tariffs because it will support union (high paying) jobs.

You were in another shred shredding the concept of tariffs because it drove the price of steel higher. WHen I pointed out that union wages do the same thing, you left the thread.

[ProBlue33]

Just so I'm clear; does that imply that if the Canadian dollar were up in comparison to the US dollar then you would be "talking about" vegetables imported from Canada (i.e.: advocating placing a tariff on vegetables imported from Canada)?



First this isn't a business letter I don't care about the correct "There or Their" and I know the difference, auto-correct puts in what it does :p

As to the other part if the Canadian dollar is at par they won't be buying those hothouse peppers because then it's not worth it, when the dollar is at 75 cents it's like getting a 25% discount. Transversely when the dollar is at par Canadians buys tons of Americans foods like cheese and wine because it's a good deal for them, they just have to make sure they don't bring too much back or the Canadian border guards get them. Imports go way up and the importers and exporters under NAFTA do very well.

The dollar is going to bounce around, at about 80 cents is where it starts being worth it, and at 70 cents it's almost always a better deal. And if there is an over supply of a perishable commodity such as a hothouse red peeper then it's even a better deal. Let the free markets handle this within a reasonable geographic area among allies, with no tariffs.

But geopolitical foes should not be supplying our food at any discount, it's just not smart, again put high tariffs on them to discourage it from happening.

[Anti Federalist]

It makes Ron Paul a libertarian. You don't just disagree with him on some marginal issue. You disagree with him on his whole philosophy.


Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.

I want more freedom for more people.

Freedom is not a priority issue with most people, they frankly could care less.

Jobs, income, keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table takes a much higher priority.

When they lose that, they will embrace the most anti freedom platforms you can imagine, facism, communism and so on.

[nikcers]

Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.

I want more freedom for more people.

Freedom is not a priority issue with most people, they frankly could care less.

Jobs, income, keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table takes a much higher priority.

When they lose that, they will embrace the most anti freedom platforms you can imagine, facism, communism and so on.

Unless you disagree on the use of government force and the entire philosophy is the rejection of that use.

[nikcers]

The difference is Ron Paul isn't an authoritarian. Even if Ron Paul was for protectionist tarrifs and he was president he wouldn't think its the presidents authority to do it and just do whatever he wants.

[Superfluous Man]

Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.


Not always. In this case it does. And I wasn't saying that to any and all people who simply say that tariffs are less bad than the income tax or something. I was replying to the OP and the arguments made there.

[Anti Federalist]

Unless you disagree on the use of government force and the entire philosophy is the rejection of that use.

Yeah, well, I suppose that requires pinning RP down on whether he is an anarchist or not.

There is no such thing as government without force, somebody, somewhere will be forced to do something they do not want to do.

[nikcers]

Yeah, well, I suppose that requires pinning RP down on whether he is an anarchist or not.

There is no such thing as government without force, somebody, somewhere will be forced to do something they do not want to do.

Where does the president get this authority?

[Swordsmyth]

Where does the president get this authority?

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.

[nikcers]

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.

When did this happen?

[nikcers]

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.
Authoritarianism vs libertarianism is more accurate.

[Swordsmyth]

When did this happen?

I'm not sure when but Congress passed a law giving the President broad authority on trade, it can be argued that they shouldn't have delegated the power or you can argue as they did that Congress is incapable of negotiating with foreign countries because it is the worlds largest committee with too many special interests fighting.

[axiomata]

I'm not sure when but Congress passed a law giving the President broad authority on trade, it can be argued that they shouldn't have delegated the power or you can argue as they did that Congress is incapable of negotiating with foreign countries because it is the worlds largest committee with too many special interests fighting.

No, they said president can apply tarrifs in the name of national defense. We can easily produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs. Not to mention access to friendly neighbors' exports. It is just an excuse to coopt tax raising authority that he does not have.

[Swordsmyth]

No, they said president can apply tarrifs in the name of national defense. We can easily produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs. Not to mention access to friendly neighbors' exports. It is just an excuse to coopt tax raising authority that he does not have.
Without the tariff we wouldn't keep the ability to produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs for much longer, China is deliberately trying to destroy other countries' ability to produce steel.

[axiomata]

Without the tariff we wouldn't keep the ability to produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs for much longer, China is deliberately trying to destroy other countries' ability to produce steel.

" U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about three percent of U.S. production. Therefore, DoD does not believe that the findings in the reports impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel·or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.”

[Swordsmyth]

" U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about three percent of U.S. production. Therefore, DoD does not believe that the findings in the reports impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel·or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.”

It wouldn't be long before we didn't produce any steel.

[Superfluous Man]

It wouldn't be long before we didn't produce any steel.

I highly doubt that.

But even if it were so, so what? If we don't need to produce steel, we should't waste resources producing it. And if we ever need to again, we can start again. If you or somebody else doesn't like that plan and want to waste your own money producing steel when it's not economically profitable, then go right ahead without forcing other people to bear any of the economic burder for doing that if they don't want to.

At the end of the day, whether we the people want to produce steel or not is our choice, not the president's and not Congress's.

[Swordsmyth]

I highly doubt that.

But even if it were so, so what? If we don't need to produce steel, we should't waste resources producing it. And if we ever need to again, we can start again. If you or somebody else doesn't like that plan and want to waste your own money producing steel when it's not economically profitable, then go right ahead without forcing other people to bear any of the economic burder for doing that if they don't want to.

At the end of the day, whether we the people want to produce steel or not is our choice, not the president's and not Congress's.

You can't just start up steel production over a weekend, especially in sufficient quantities to support a war effort.

The Confederacy lost the war between the states for want of heavy industry:


There are thresholds below which you no longer have the capacity to rebuild in any reasonable length of time or before you are forced to surrender to the enemy, the south lost the war of northern aggression because as Rhett Butler puts it in Gone with the wind "there is not a cannon factory in the whole south".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S72nI4Ex_E0