Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?

  1. #1
    Supporting Member
    North Korea
    Lamp's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    2
    Posts
    1,795
    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?

    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I see no reason that I should be the only one to suffer. And yes, I will one day exact my revenge upon those who exposed me to this toxic waste, for it is a crime against humanity.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kfarnan View Post
    who said that's true?
    Everyone who agrees with this site's mission.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HitoKichi View Post
    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    Show your dad Bastiat's candlestick makers' petition and ask him if he would sign it.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ition-to-Trump

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Everyone who agrees with this site's mission.
    Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs any more than it grants another the right to impose them.

    "This sights mission"

    Mission Statement
    Foreword:
    Finding a core set of principles one can apply throughout one's life to achieve social harmony is a thought process that has been performed by philosophers throughout history. It is also a thought process that is applied here. The quest for core principles to build a society on has shown that the ideals of liberty and justice, coupled with free and honest markets, are a blueprint that allow for humanity to thrive. An approximate definition of these ideals is as follows:

    Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
    Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.
    Free and honest markets: Individuals can exchange in trade without restriction and should be honest in their dealings.

    While ideals are important, the application of them is equally as important which must be secured by society and governmental bodies, which must be supported by wise individuals. These realities necessitate additional ideals and principles.

    Developing and applying specific details with these ideals is an endeavor full of complexities and disagreements. While there will never be universal agreement on all issues, one should embrace functional discourse to resolving differences -- which is truly the point of civil advancement. One should consider this as an important element within the human experience as we develop knowledge and wisdom throughout our lifetime on this planet that we all share.

    We remain confident that with the development of the ideals of liberty and justice, with free and honest markets, we will realize a wonderful planet where all can flourish.
    Sane and logical arguments have been waged both for and against tariffs time and again, some of the more logical ones center around "honest markets"...

    So a blanket statement couched as fact when it's nothing more than an opinion is disingenuous...

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs
    Yes it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Sane and logical arguments have been waged both for and against tariffs time and again, some of the more logical ones center around "honest markets"...

    So a blanket statement couched as fact when it's nothing more than an opinion is disingenuous...
    That is ridiculous. No sane arguments for tariffs have ever been waged. They are a positively stupid and indefensible idea.

  8. #7

    Default

    There is nothing in this life that can not be measured in money.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Yes it does.
    Another opinion.

    Liberty is what you have the ability to exercise in practice...

    So show me big boy....

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Another opinion.

    Liberty is what you have the ability to exercise in practice...

    So show me big boy....
    I just like to show everybody haw far from the ideal they are. I am, myself, not very successful IRL but I like to play the role of $#@! disturber.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  11. #10

    Default

    If no countries impose tariffs or import duties then there is a free market but when countries trade where one imposes duties and the other refrains then the market is no longer free. This too has been discussed ad-nauseam.



    Ron has this to say;


    Free Trade

    Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.” He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.

    He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

    Buy American, Unless… (February 12, 2001)
    Members of Congress often encourage us to “buy American” during their speeches on the House floor. Some members regularly place a “buy American” clause in various trade-related bills, seeking to protect domestic jobs by encouraging the purchase of American goods. Ironically, however, many of these same legislators vote to prohibit American companies from gaining access to new markets overseas. They do so by supporting our senseless embargo policies, which simply help our foreign trading competitors at the expense of American companies.

    Of course most politicians claim that they support free trade. Intuitively, most Americans understand that access to foreign markets provides significant benefits to US citizens and American-based corporations. However, we continue to pursue a policy of denying or restricting domestic companies from selling to Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, and other countries. This inconsistency is especially evident when we consider “export financing,” which really is foreign aid designed to help other countries buy American goods. Most Washington politicians support the practice of export financing, arguing that access to foreign markets benefits American companies, and not just foreign consumers. However, the opposite argument is made with regard to our embargo policies. Suddenly, increased trade with countries some want to label as unworthy only benefits sinister foreign consumers, and not domestic producers. This nonsensical position is maintained by many in government who favor government-managed trade which benefits certain chosen special interests.

    Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.

    Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None (September 21, 2001)
    Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products. Isolationism is arming both sides of a conflict, only to discover that you’ve made two enemies instead of keeping two friends. Isolationism is trying to police the world but creating more resentment than gratitude. Isolationism is not understanding economics, or other cultures, but clumsily intervening anyway and creating major disasters out of minor problems.

    Free trade makes sense (June 7, 1999)
    […] if someone says they are for “free trade,” one must look carefully what they really mean, for the classic (and common sense) definition does not apply.

    All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.

    On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called “isolationists.” There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves “fair traders,” though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not “fair” in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.

    Sadly, these definitions all hinge on the assumption that there are essentially only two options: tax dollars being used to subsidize corporations/foreign governments, or no trade whatsoever without the rubber stamp of government bureaucrats and special interest groups.

    The bottom-line of both options, of course, is higher taxes for Americans. Higher taxes to finance the subsidies, or higher taxes on incoming products (and make no mistake, a tariff is a tax, paid by the American consumer).

    There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.

    It is indisputable that individuals know better how to provide for their families than government. It is also indisputable that a company is better equipped to know what its market will tolerate than a bureaucrat in Washington. In this way, a person is able to determine what goods best meet their individual needs, weighing numerous factors in their decision. But when government intervenes, it no longer becomes possible for an individual to provide for their family and business in the most expedient fashion. This is the antithesis of liberty.

    The World Trade Organization (March 20, 2000)
    The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced.

    If one truly believes in free trade, one never argues a need for reciprocity or bureaucratic management of trade. If free trade is truly beneficial, as so many claim, unilateral free trade is an end in itself and requires neither treaties nor international management by politicians and bureaucrats. A country should promote free trade in its own self-interest — never for the benefit of someone else.

    Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a “cost” of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a “deal.”
    By my reading I come away with so long as one country imposes tariffs there can be no free markets...

    Hence in order for you liberty to hinge on free markets you must impose your will on another nation which will of course infringe on their liberty...

    While I'm typing.......... Explain the real world difference between import duties and tariffs..

  12. #11

    Default

    Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?
    They're not a bad thing, as long as you can do them without jabbing a gun into anyone's belly and saying. "Comply - or else!" ...

  13. #12

    Default

    Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?
    They're not.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HitoKichi View Post
    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    When I was little, I used to wonder why the govt cannot just fix prices of ice cream so that everybody can afford it, then I grew up. The problem with tarrifs is that other countries would retaliate in kind when you impose tariffs on their products. Most likely, what the country gains in imports, they would lose it in exports and it would be a wash at the end. With the US, other countries could be so mad that they may decided to break free from the dollar. That is when people would really understand what hardship really is.
    Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all. Geralt of Rivia

    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    With the US, other countries could be so mad that they may decided to break free from the dollar. That is when people would really understand what hardship really is.
    break free from the dollar = stop financing our deficit
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    break free from the dollar = stop financing our deficit
    Yup, I am sure they aren't ready to face the consequences of doing that. They probably need someone like Trump to put them between a rock and a hard place to act. I read posts after post with people thinking the world is actually cheating America and I just shake my damn head and laugh.
    Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all. Geralt of Rivia

    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Yup, I am sure they aren't ready to face the consequences of doing that. They probably need someone like Trump to put them between a rock and a hard place to act. I read posts after post with people thinking the world is actually cheating America and I just shake my damn head and laugh.
    I am sure we have enough military resources to convince them they should not be doing that
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  18. #17

    Default

    Lets say your State needs to raise 1 million revenue.
    Which is least harmful? Income tax? Corporate tax? Per-capita tax? ; Tariffs?

  19. #18

    Default

    Who benefits from tariffs? Businesses who cannot compete with foreign businesses. They don't have to become more efficient and can keep more of their profits (which are not necessarily passed along to their workers). Who pays for tariffs? Not the foreign companies- US consumers do with higher prices.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who benefits from tariffs? Businesses who cannot compete with foreign businesses.
    And maybe the employees who still have a job..

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They don't have to become more efficient and can keep more of their profits (which are not necessarily passed along to their workers).
    Evil business owners! Better to support foreign businesses who pay their workers in fishheads and rice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Who pays for tariffs? Not the foreign companies- US consumers do with higher prices.
    About the only US consumers left are those 'working' for government or one of her entities...........Oh.........And the evil business owners.


    The issue of tariffs wouldn't be an issue if the feds weren't involved in businesses.....

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HitoKichi View Post
    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    You cannot really prevent jobs from leaving . The reasons jobs leave though are mostly not wages as people often think . A large company often has more at stake in taxes and expenses to meet govt regulation than any amount of wages . Tariffs can be bad in an environment like todays because there is so little mnfg here that imported goods will cost more . It could also be a good thing if you could eliminate other taxes because then it is mostly just a usage tax . Everything depends on how you slice it .

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HitoKichi View Post
    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    A tariff on foreign goods is functionally identical to a subsidy of domestic goods. Would he support that?

    Either way the government is interfering in the market to choose winners and losers.
    Beyond hope:
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    I think [Trump] is going to cut the [Pentagon] budget.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    [Paul Ryan being kicked out of speakership] happens soon after the vote fails.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Within the first 100 days Trump/Rand will have Ryan gone as Speaker.

    Still hopeful:
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    Expect [a government shutdown] in September.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    I give Trump 1 year to put [Clinton] in jail. See you in January 2018 about this issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The Fed is NOT safe from audit, Trump has said he wants to audit the fed and we may have some bills coming up soon.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    A tariff on foreign goods is functionally identical to a subsidy of domestic goods. Would he support that?

    Either way the government is interfering in the market to choose winners and losers.
    There will be no free markets until there is a complete collapse .

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Lets say your State needs to raise 1 million revenue.
    Which is least harmful? Income tax? Corporate tax? Per-capita tax? ; Tariffs?
    If I was dictator of my state I would charge people of Illinois a toll to enter my state . Hopefully they would quit coming , but if not , free revenue .

  25. #24

    Default

    The counter question is why is preventing outsourcing a good thing?

    Jobs are not a goal and should never be a consideration in policy. Jobs are an expense. Employees are a headache. The definition of productivity is doing more with less. Fewer workers for a given level of output is always desirable.

    When you start with productivity in mind the answer is clear. Cuba has no unemployment. But is Cuba a good place to live? No. They don't prioritize productivity. The prioritize jobs. The reason companies outsource is because it raises productivity.

    Tariffs lower productivity for everyone. Both countries have a lower standard of living when one of the countries puts up a trade barrier.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And maybe the employees who still have a job..



    Evil business owners! Better to support foreign businesses who pay their workers in fishheads and rice.



    About the only US consumers left are those 'working' for government or one of her entities...........Oh.........And the evil business owners.
    If I am paying higher prices due to tariffs, I have less money to spend at other businesses. So they cut their labor force since I am spending fewer dollars with them. one business benefited, consumers and other businesses were hurt.

    The issue of tariffs wouldn't be an issue if the feds weren't involved in businesses.....
    Of course if the government was not involved there would be no tariff and foreign businesses could compete against domestic ones.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If I am paying higher prices due to tariffs, I have less money to spend at other businesses. So they cut their labor force since I am spending fewer dollars with them. one business benefited, consumers and other businesses were hurt.



    Of course if the government was not involved there would be no tariff and foreign businesses could compete against domestic ones.
    And domestic ones wouldn't have to deal with burdensome regulations and restrictions...

    If you want to spend your dollars paying overseas companies that's fine, I'd rather not.

    I don't want government protecting your air or water any more than I want them inflicting tariffs...

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And domestic ones wouldn't have to deal with burdensome regulations and restrictions...

    If you want to spend your dollars paying overseas companies that's fine, I'd rather not.

    I don't want government protecting your air or water any more than I want them inflicting tariffs...
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to. This post may include statements I don't personally agree with.

  29. #28

    Default

    Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation, and they serve as economic insulation, so when your trading partners catch economic flu you don't get economic pneumonia. They have the side effect of providing stability, which is sorely lacking in today's efficiency obsessed world.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation, and they serve as economic insulation, so when your trading partners catch economic flu you don't get economic pneumonia. They have the side effect of providing stability, which is sorely lacking in today's efficiency obsessed world.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%...ley_Tariff_Act

    I am not sure the safety and warmth and insulation from the cold cruel world provided by the Smoot Hawley Tariff was fully appreciated by people living in the 1930's.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Oh boy now that's a scary picture.........

    Please Mr.Gubment man protect me from the evil businesses...

    NOT!

    Load your damn cities down, fill 'em up and choke the inhabitants...And good riddance.

    I don't want government involved AT ALL.

    But....................If you want government to restrict and regulate production of goods within this country's borders then it's only right to inflict similar financial burdens on imported goods, and those 'tariffs' or duties should be paid directly to the businesses that produce goods here, NOT to any government agency..

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Economic: Jobs: Outsourcing or Offshoring of Jobs
    By rockerrockstar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-12-2012, 01:07 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 05:10 PM
  3. What Warren Harding Could Teach Obama About Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
    By FrankRep in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-2010, 07:34 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-20-2010, 06:07 PM
  5. Fast food chain to start outsourcing jobs overseas
    By devil21 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 12:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •