Tab Content
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 07:42 PM
    5751 replies | 401624 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 07:24 PM
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1449898215176871937 1449898215176871937
    144 replies | 14986 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 06:17 PM
    5751 replies | 401624 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 06:10 PM
    5751 replies | 401624 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 06:03 PM
    5751 replies | 401624 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 06:01 PM
    5751 replies | 401624 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Today, 03:47 PM
    They're dems, every one vaxed and masked.
    5 replies | 188 view(s)
  • luctor-et-emergo's Avatar
    Today, 10:08 AM
    Around 6-8% a year sounds more reasonable indeed.
    6 replies | 139 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    3 replies | 158 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 PM
    They can't get past the first step.
    17 replies | 499 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:05 PM
    There should be a 12 step program for racism. :D
    17 replies | 499 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:39 PM
    "Importers" are more worthless baggage who produce nothing and profit off others labor just like every other suit-n-tie. No idea what "scare quotes" are? There's good cronyism and bad, if they agree with my ideology they're good, if they produce any tangible good they're good, if they profit off others labor they're inherently bad. If they push social or political agendas I disagree with, they're bad.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:52 PM
    I've not argued for or against tariffs but I am arguing for production as close to home as feasible. If for no other reason than to avoid 'entangling alliances'. I'm also arguing for localized production for serviceability of goods, even John Deere is buying the majority of their parts from overseas at this point and farmers are struggling to get their crops in and that's time sensitive. I'm one of those people who will pay more for made in USA but even that has been bastardized by lawyers/fed-gov to where the phrase doesn't really mean made in USA. I'd like to have the option of supporting labor forces with whom I have common ground when I purchase goods. Having the ability to say "I'm not going to buy from you" works locally and nationally so long as there's a choice of suppliers.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:21 PM
    That same presidential candidate also fully recognized and acknowledged that the low and general (not high and targeted) general tariff he advocated would nevertheless still have all the deleterious effects that I and others have identified in this thread. Which is precisely why ha advocated to keep it as low and general as possible, in order to minimize and more evenly distribute the damage it would inevitably cause. This is tautological, as depending "too much" on anything is problematic - that's what "too much" means, after all. For example, one could just as reasonably say "Depending too much on domestic manufacturing and products can leave you in a bind." How much is "too much" is the very question at issue. The answer changes over time and with circumstances and is best decided by the free market. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those. And no tariff as such is ever going to bring us closer to one.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:15 PM
    Acquiring a thing from "over there" (wherever that is) may be cheaper than making it "right here" (wherever that is). Or it may not. And that might change tomorrow for any of myriad reasons. Or it might not. But mere "geographic scope" (be it "global" or "national" or "local" or whatever) has nothing to do with it, one way or the other. The laws of economics have no more respect for arbitrary geopolitical boundaries than illegal immigrants do. And unlike the latter, the laws of men can do nothing about the former. quod erat demonstrandum
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:45 AM
    I'm not entirely sure what "comfortable" or "meaningful" are supposed to denote here. But whatever lack of "comfort" I might have with my guns & ammo coming only from China, should I be any less "uncomfortable" with them coming only from Canada? Or even only from Texas? For example, why should I be more "comfortable" with a tariff of X% imposed on imported armaments than with, say, a tax of X% imposed by Democrats on domestic armaments (which would presumably also apply to imports as well)? Which is all the more reason to oppose tariffs on those items. And in the case of microchips, it's not just a matter of comparative advantage and division of labor. China, Indonesia, et al. have better access to more abundant sources of the necessary natural resources. As I noted in a previous post, there are very good reasons why households no longer make their own clothing. Artificially inducing them to do so again is not going to make them more prosperous in the short or long term. Nor will autarkic tariffs make America (or this or that state/locality) more prosperous or independent - and for exactly the same reasons. It will only serve to induce wasteful misallocations of capital for the sake of enriching some Americans (or state/local factions) at the expense of other Americans (or state/local factions), while making the former more dependent on a brittle tariff regime and the politicians & bureaucrats who implement it.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:35 AM
    I disagree that local production is the primary point of tariffs. But it doesn't actually matter: I previously addressed this:
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:44 AM
    But when it comes to hammer tariffs, it is "just Stanley" (and their fellow hammer-makers). All those other employers/employees/consumers/etc. who have to pay the price for Stanley's "tariff privilege" would like to "live a comfortable life and raise a family, and be part of and supportive of our nation and western civilization", too. Do they get to just kick rocks? How does forcibly taking money out of the pockets of American hammer-users and putting it into the pockets of American hammer-makers serve any of the good causes you mentioned? I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating:
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:28 AM
    You single out China and California, but my point is that your logic applies just as much to Connecticut as it does to those two popular punching bags - or to any other arbitrary geopolitical divisions. (And the reasons for any given tariff - "protective" or "punitive" or whatever - simply don't matter. They are completely irrelevant to its consequences. A tariff of T% imposed for reason X will have exactly the same effects as a tariff of T% imposed for any other reason Y.) How does it benefit New Hampshire to impose tariffs on goods (including Stanley hammers) from Connecticut, and vice versa? And if it does, should it not also benefit Hillsborough county to impose tariffs on goods from Merrimack county, and vice versa? And if it does, should it not also benefit Manchester to impose tariffs on goods from Nashua, and vice versa? And if it does ...
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 AM
    Okay. As awful as all that sounds, it doesn't matter. All those things have already been accounted for and subsumed in the stipulated cost of the hammer ($10) and will have no additional relevance to or effect on anything beyond that. But it doesn't reverse that incentive. In fact, since Stanley no longer have to worry about their Chinese competitors underpricing them, it would, if anything, incentivize them to actively reduce the quality of the hammers they already make so that they can make an even healthier profit on each hammer sold
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • DamianTV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:24 AM
    Never ever let Tyrants pick your heroes for you. --- When we let them do so, we end up with the likes of Steve Urkel and Gilligan vs any of our REAL Founding Fathers, or fictionally Rambo or John Wayne characters. California Gender Neutral Mandates ARE Modern Day Lynching In a way, this is not that different from Lynching.
    12 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:53 AM
    But tariffs on steel imports will do just the opposite - they will result in higher pricing for American-made steel. After all, the whole point of steel tariffs is to prevent steel imports from being cheaper than domestic steel, and thus to allow domestic producers to charge more than they otherwise could have charged. And it's not at all difficult to tell what steel consumers would do under such circumstances. It's simple economics. They will do what buyers always do, ceteris paribus, when prices go up. They will buy less of something. They will buy less steel, or they will buy less labor, or they will curtail expansion, or they will pass the cost on to the consumers of their products (who will in turn buy less of those products, thereby inducing a cascading "ripple" effect ...), or any combination of these or other things. Pre-existing allocations of capital and economies of scale might very well make it cheaper for Oklahoma to "freight raw materials halfway around the world and back" - even without tariffs and duties and all that other bullshit. There are only so many steel mills that are actually needed to meet demands at any given time, and it would make no sense for Oklahoma to expend resources to build new steel mills if they could more cheaply and easily ship raw material to already-existing plants elsewhere and then ship back the refined product. This would allow them to expend those resources on other things rather than on mills that might well end up sitting idle some of the time because there isn't enough for them to do (and that were built just for the sake of "having their own" or "doing it themselves" and not because it made any economic sense). It's basically the same reason that most households don't make their own clothing anymore. Why bother? It's more trouble than it's worth. Comparative advantage and the division of labor are good things. It doesn't make sense to thwart them merely for the sake of localism (which I am all for politically - localism, I mean).
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • tod evans's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:43 AM
    Eventually the 50 states are going to have that option, how or if they exercise it remains to be seen. Fed-gov has proved it's unable to govern effectively given the disparate interests of the various states and their people. And in this age it's unlikely Fed-gov would survive another civil war leaving the only option deferring to the states. The states may/should remain united for civil defense but it's long past time to separate legally and economically.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:18 AM
    If imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other countries is good for Americans, then it must also be the case that imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other states is good for Montanans. And Floridians. And Missourians. And Pennsylvanians. And Californians. And all the way down the line for all 50 states. But if that would be good for all 50 states (which is, after all, just a different way of saying "America"), then why don't the advocates of higher tariffs on goods from other countries also advocate for a Constitutional amendment to allow each state to impose tariffs on goods imported from other states?
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
More Activity

8 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I'm gonna post it.
  2. View Conversation
    Sorry my box was full. Do you want me to post the pic?
  3. View Conversation
    Merry Christmas to you and your family!
  4. View Conversation
    Thank you for the +rep earlier. But now you're probably going to -rep me for my posts about dairy.
  5. View Conversation
    Right now its clear that statist secular humanism are effectively the law of the land. And ever since the 14th amendment the states are not allowed to do anything different.

    Its impossible for any standard of law to be neutral. That's the ultimate issue. And every idea of freedom that you hold dear, even if it is at some point abused or twisted, ultimately originates in Christianity.
  6. View Conversation
    Thanks for the +reps
  7. View Conversation
    THAT'S a first...merci buckets.
  8. View Conversation
    Please help! I'm counting on RPF! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251175
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 8 of 8
About tod evans

Basic Information

About tod evans
Occupation:
Joiner/furniture maker
Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
34,025
Posts Per Day
6.76
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
8
Most Recent Message
04-08-2017 06:16 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:05 PM
Join Date
01-03-2008
Referrals
1

24 Friends

  1. AZJoe AZJoe is offline

    Member

    AZJoe
  2. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  3. ClydeCoulter ClydeCoulter is offline

    Member

    ClydeCoulter
  4. DamianTV DamianTV is offline

    Member

    DamianTV
  5. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  6. Dr.3D Dr.3D is online now

    Member

    Dr.3D
  7. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
  8. green73 green73 is offline

    Member

    green73
  9. Indy Vidual Indy Vidual is offline

    Member

    Indy Vidual
  10. Lamp Lamp is offline

    Member

    Lamp
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 24
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

09-23-2021


07-09-2021


06-24-2021


05-23-2021


04-25-2021


03-20-2021


03-09-2021


03-04-2021


03-02-2021

  • 05:44 PM - Hidden

02-04-2021


01-26-2021


01-07-2021


12-30-2020


09-29-2020


09-26-2020

  • 07:37 AM - Hidden

09-06-2020

  • 12:19 AM - Hidden

08-22-2020


07-28-2020

  • 07:03 PM - Hidden

03-18-2020

  • 02:53 PM - Deleted Posts


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 303 1231151101 ... LastLast

10-17-2021


10-16-2021


10-15-2021


10-14-2021


10-13-2021


10-12-2021


10-11-2021



Page 1 of 303 1231151101 ... LastLast