• Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 01:05 PM
    Those detailed rebuttals are so devastating.
    3 replies | 56 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 12:47 PM
    He hasnt been around , figured he was in rehab .
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 11:55 AM
    We could. The Immigration Act of 1921 effectively shut down all immigration. The Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 allowed US agriculture to survive disruptions caused by the Great War and become what it is today, the last thing we make well. The Fordney McCumber Tariff of 1922 also was in place. The tariff was supported by the Republican Party and conservatives and was generally opposed by the Democratic Party, liberals, and progressives. One purpose of the tariff was to help those returning from World War I have greater job opportunities.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 11:13 AM
    As for the logjam, shippers will rediscover the Panama Canal sooner or later. And all the ships which aren't too broad of beam to fit through it will suddenly become more valuable. I like it when California shoots itself in the foot. It works for me.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:50 AM
    If you like the Panhandle, you had better expect--and even woo--company. To invoke the secession clause of the Texas Constitution, you may have no choice but place the referendum before three Oklahoma counties, and significant portions of New Mexico, Kansas and Colorado. There may be no other legal way to do it.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:41 AM
    The reason the U.S. pulled out of the unyielding terrain where empires go to die is because they suddenly decided the Taliban is useful again? That's the sort of fuzzy logic I'd expect from a brain capable of saying, "...has thrown spokes in the wheels of..." Since when do wheels mind spokes? So we're edging closer to middle eastern holocaust and WWIII. Or not. Can't tell anything by this tripe.
    3 replies | 56 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 10:35 AM
    I disagree that local production is the primary point of tariffs. But it doesn't actually matter: I previously addressed this:
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:32 AM
    The "economic policy" of freedom was tested a hundred years ago. It worked so well it was called "The Roaring 'Twenties". We could do with another Roaring 'Twenties.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 09:51 AM
    And that means tariffs--a thieving, backed-by-violence top-down big government action--is the cure for psychotic big government? The cure for too many regulations within the borders is more regulations at the borders? If government is exercising too much power, we have to have a stopgap measure until we can take big, out of control government down a notch that involves government wielding more power, in other words, being ratcheted up a notch? Has government ever made America great? Or did America always enjoy greatness only when government did least? Enough band aids. Sooner or later we're going to address the heart of the actual problem, or be overwhelmed by it. And I'm not sure how much "later" we have left.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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:
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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 ...
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 09:27 AM
    These people are trying to end the BIA. All they want is for Washington to fuck off and leave them alone. And the media and various astroturf like "People Against Fossil Fuels" are trying to usurp them and change their message? Talk about systemic racism. "We are the MSM, and we get to redefine the concerns of your entire ethnicity."
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 09:15 AM
    Great Sachem is truly wise. Where is your sidekick, Danke these days?
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 09:12 AM
    Because it isn't just Stanley. And it is the Stanley's and Black and Deckers and Milwaukees and hundreds of others that employ millions of people in good paying middle class jobs that pay enough money so that you can live a comfortable life and raise a family, and be part of and supportive of our nation and western civilization, instead of becoming a drug death statistic or a pink haired lesbian communist burning the place down. That's what this government is supposed to do: provide the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It is actively doing everything it can to do the opposite.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 09:09 AM
    Ya , somebody didnt read the bullet points when they cashed the check. I do though fully support fossil fuels and eliminating the Dept of Interior.
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 09:05 AM
    And he's right. There is more to this than just dollars.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 08:53 AM
    I started out as something like a Constitutional Conservative , a kind of Goldwater , Ike , Ron Paul type Republican. I think of myself now as more of an extremist. A Freedom and Liberty extremist. I dont feel like a radical although I understand people ( marxists ) might conveniently view it as such . I still think of them as radical commie sons of bitches even though I an fully aware they are the mainstream . I expect by the end I'll just be an anarchist , one that bathes every day when I can .
    7 replies | 767 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 08:47 AM
    No doubt. But there is no question in my mind that the start of all this was handing our currency, our manufacturing, and by extension the American middle class, over to Chairman Mao, by the twin snakes of Kissinger and Nixon. That's an absolute that CCT declared. And it's not true.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 08:25 AM
    There may have been one or two other variables at play there. You know. Like hyperinflationary money printing, foreign aid, overregulation, micromismanagement, a few little things.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 08:16 AM
    If that's the case then why has fifty years of relatively tariff free (only on our side of course) "free trade" left the nation utterly bankrupt, middle class wages stagnant, the family destroyed as everybody has to get out and work with nobody left to raise children but the Marxist "school" system from infancy to adult, individual debt at record levels, manufacturing, the source of those middle class jobs, decimated, and an entire generation so beat down by not only the propaganda being forced on them but the economic reality that they couldn't buy a home and start a family even if they wanted to, that they are killing themselves with dope to the tune of 100,000, mostly young white men, a year? In the same 50 years how has China become the world's leading economic and soon to be political and military superpower, with massive restrictive tariffs in place?
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 08:07 AM
    I'm all for it. I'd happily slap a tariff on goods made in, say, California, as matter of protest against their policies. I've had this argument many times here, you can go back and see my position has always been in favor of protective tariffs. I've always been in favor of an across the board 30 percent tariff on everything Made in China. Had that been put in place, perhaps China would not have been in the position to create, then release, a biological weapon on us and the world, that has now killed close to three quarters of a million US citizens.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 08:03 AM
    oyarde replied to a thread Labor Strikes in U.S. Political News
    Over 200 Boeing workers protest near seattle over vaccine mandates Friday ( yesterday ). Boeing requirement starts Dec 08. American airlines also.
    15 replies | 379 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 07:59 AM
    Let's say you're Stanley tools in CT. To manufacture a hammer in China, ship it halfway around the world, get it here, package it for retail sale, ship it to retailers or direct to customers, costs $10. To make it here, costs $12. MSRP is $15. Even though the Chinese product is of inferior quality, the supply logistics are a nightmare (your last shipment of 100,000 hammers went to the bottom of the sea when the container they were packed in went overboard in a typhoon off in the Pacific), the in shipment "shrink" is significant, in spite of all those added difficulties, the $2 of extra profit in each hammer is too much of an incentive to pass up.
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 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).
    65 replies | 622 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
18,469
Posts Per Day
4.62
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
50
Most Recent Message
10-22-2020 05:06 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:50 PM
Join Date
11-05-2010
Referrals
0

50 Friends

  1. A Son of Liberty A Son of Liberty is offline

    Member

    A Son of Liberty
  2. acptulsa acptulsa is offline

    Member

    acptulsa
  3. Adam Kokesh Adam Kokesh is offline

    Member

    Adam Kokesh
  4. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  5. amy31416 amy31416 is offline

    Member

    amy31416
  6. angelatc angelatc is offline

    Banned

    angelatc
  7. Anti Federalist Anti Federalist is offline

    Member

    Anti Federalist
  8. AZJoe AZJoe is offline

    Member

    AZJoe
  9. bolil bolil is offline

    Member

    bolil
  10. Cabal Cabal is offline

    Member

    Cabal
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 50
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

10-13-2021

  • 01:24 PM - Hidden

09-17-2021


09-10-2021


09-09-2021


08-17-2021


07-06-2021


07-05-2021


05-10-2021


04-27-2021


02-04-2021


01-07-2021


12-19-2020


10-23-2020


10-14-2020


10-13-2020


09-17-2020


09-08-2020



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 148 1231151101 ... LastLast

10-16-2021


10-14-2021


10-13-2021



Page 1 of 148 1231151101 ... LastLast