• CCTelander's Avatar
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Today, 03:10 AM
    This statement flies in the face of all reason and logic. SMGDH
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Today, 03:08 AM
    Well, at least you're consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:01 PM
    Tariffs are not necessary to ameliorate this problem either. https://mises.org/wire/3-modern-arguments-tariffs-debunked In fact, tariffs actually REDUCE the nation's ability to prepare for and cope with crises and the outbreak of war, to wit:
    97 replies | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 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 | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:42 AM
    26 replies | 1172 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    48 replies | 2125 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:30 AM
    None of that would "eliminat the 'special-interest cronyism'" - it would merely change who the cronies are. It also doesn't answer or address any of the questions I asked. For example, how would the elimination of steel imports "spur production" among American steel consumers? If anything, it would retard steel consumption even more severely than tariffs would. Banning imports would effectively be the same as imposing infinitely high tariffs, with all the same deleterious effects (only greatly magnified and amplified). Absent market-warping regulations, importers are doing nothing objectionable. They are merely selling goods that are being demanded by willing buyers. Also, if importation is bad for America (and "America" here is one hell of a big mouse in the pocket), then American exports must likewise be bad for the countries that import them. IOW: Voluntary exchange must be a "lose-lose" proposition, and that is contrary to all the laws of economics (which, like the laws of physics, do not change just because some arbitrary geopolitical boundary has been crossed). Then by all means, abolish those government regulations. But replacing them with tariffs (or, even worse, slathering tariffs on top of them) isn't going to solve that problem. It will only change who is being expropriated on behalf of someone else.
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:44 AM
    https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1449127945386160128 1449127945386160128
    171 replies | 21027 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:54 AM
    Just cops doing the job they were actually hired to do, i.e. keep the rabble (that's us) in line. Nothing to see here. Move along now.
    146 replies | 5035 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:30 AM
    Everyone who considers themselves an activist for liberty should read it. It's just THAT good.
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:21 AM
    As noted at the source, that's from Chapter 11 of Economics in One Lesson.
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:14 AM
    Because tariffs always, ALWAYS cause more economic harm than good. Always. https://mises.org/wire/whos-protected-tariffs See also: https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:03 AM
    How does making the product of one American industry more expensive to other American industries "spur production" in those other American industries? For example, how does it "spur production" in American steel-consuming industries by making steel more expensive for them - by implementing steel tariffs meant to "spur production" in American steel-producing industries? Outside of special-interest cronyism, why should American steel producers be favored over American steel consumers?
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:44 AM
    INCORRECT People who benefit from American tariffs: Americans People who suffer from American tariffs: Foreigners
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:49 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."
    7 replies | 337 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:39 AM
    Perhaps. But even if that's true, it will never do it as quickly and efficiently as eliminating regulations and taxes. Plus, the cost is, especially under current economic circumstances, extreme economic hardship for almost everyone. https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0 https://mises.org/wire/how-look-tariffs-1
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:20 AM
    Even assuming Youngkin wins and is able to implement such policies, the "other side" will just undo those things whenever they eventually end up in charge again (just like Biden undid Trump's executive order banning the use of CRT-based DIE materials in federal training programs). Until then, they will sabotage, undermine and/or simply ignore Youngkin's policies. The vast unelected and unaccountable "public" (read: government) education bureaucracy - including the plantation of private-sector (but certainly not free-market) "stakeholders" and other cronies (such as Panorama Education) - will merely "ride out" whatever demagogues happen to get themselves elected until they can once again get a more congenial administration. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Mass democracy is mass delusion. No one is coming to save us. There is only one viable course.
    7 replies | 337 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:04 AM
    Exhibiting your keen economic insight again, I see. Despite your pathological love for them, protectionist tariffs do not ameliorate this situation even the tiniest little bit. Manufacturers didn't move their operations overseas because of a deficiency of tariffs here in the US. In fact, most of the industries concerned enjoyed such tariffs, at least occasionally, before and during their moves overseas, and many continue to enjoy them afterwards. No, inadequate tariffs didn't cause the problem and they won't fix it. Manufaturers moved their operations overseas because here in the US they were burdened by massive overregulation and taxation. Reduce or eliminate those and manufacturing returns. Furthermore, given the current economic situation, with the liklihood of significant price inflation looming, adding the burden of price increases due to tariffs unneccessarily increases the economic hardship we'll all soon be suffering. Pitch your economic illiteracy elsewhere, please.
    97 replies | 1490 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    7 replies | 337 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 08:01 PM
    Tough to fit on a business card.
    7 replies | 838 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    10-15-2021, 06:49 PM
    How about radical extremist? Or extremist radical? Lots of ways that can go.
    7 replies | 838 view(s)
More Activity

7 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    i was wondering if that was you. have you seen this thread, yet? http://www.revolutionbox.org/Thread-Beer?highlight=beer
  2. View Conversation
    A Liberty candidate needs your help!

    Donate today to Thomas Massie with $20.12 or something bigger! http://www.thomasmassie.com/

    For Liberty!
  3. View Conversation
    I didn't get a PM from you. Probably because I had you blocked. Please send it again. Thank you.
  4. No worries!
  5. View Conversation
    Thats weird... I'm sure I hit "I approve". My apologies again, I will positive rep one of ur other posts.
  6. View Conversation
    I negative rep'd you? Thats strange I actually really liked ur post. I must have missclicked. I'll go positive rep some of ur other posts to make up for that.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 7 of 7
About A Son of Liberty

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,918
Posts Per Day
1.16
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
7
Most Recent Message
06-25-2012 09:25 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:21 PM
Join Date
02-26-2010
Referrals
0

11 Friends

  1. amy31416 amy31416 is offline

    Member

    amy31416
  2. Cabal Cabal is offline

    Member

    Cabal
  3. CCTelander CCTelander is offline

    Member

    CCTelander
  4. Deborah K Deborah K is offline

    Member

    Deborah K
  5. FortisKID FortisKID is offline

    Member

    FortisKID
  6. green73 green73 is offline

    Member

    green73
  7. noneedtoaggress noneedtoaggress is offline

    Member

    noneedtoaggress
  8. Occam's Banana Occam's Banana is offline

    Member

    Occam's Banana
  9. Rothbardian Girl Rothbardian Girl is offline

    Member

    Rothbardian Girl
  10. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 11
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

09-04-2021

  • 01:06 PM - Hidden

08-31-2021


05-13-2021


01-16-2021


12-14-2020


08-14-2019


04-02-2019

  • 01:15 AM - Hidden

01-10-2019


10-18-2016


09-17-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 48 12311 ... LastLast

10-13-2021


10-12-2021


10-11-2021


10-10-2021



Page 1 of 48 12311 ... LastLast