Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

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

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    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.
    Smoot Hawley was not MODERATE. Plus it was just a scape-goat for the real causes of the depression. (THE FED/EURO CENTRAL BANKS)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation
    If you're just saying that one kind of taxation is less terrible than another, that's not saying much. They're all terrible, and none are a positive good thing in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.
    What a ridiculous excuse for tariffs. You're basically saying they protect us from suffering a future economic downfall from a higher level to a lower level by permanently holding us down at that lower level so that we never get up to the higher level so as to be able to fall back down.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If you're just saying that one kind of taxation is less terrible than another, that's not saying much. They're all terrible, and none are a positive good thing in any way.
    I will not debate anarchists. Some government, and therefore some taxes are necessary.



    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    What a ridiculous excuse for tariffs. You're basically saying they protect us from suffering a future economic downfall from a higher level to a lower level by permanently holding us down at that lower level so that we never get up to the higher level so as to be able to fall back down.
    As with all insulation there is some loss of peak potential, but the protection from catastrophe is greater. And long term growth is better, plants grow better in the tropics than in zones with wild temperature swings.

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will not debate anarchists. Some government, and therefore some taxes are necessary.
    If you believe in taxes, and you won't debate those who don't (like the guy this website is named for and everyone who supports this site's mission statement), then why are you even here?
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 04-04-2017 at 08:10 PM.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    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...
    Completely confused by this. Whose liberty will be infringed upon?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs any more than it grants another the right to impose them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Yes it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Completely confused by this. Whose liberty will be infringed upon?
    Still confused?

  8. #37

    Default

    You can debate whether an an-cap state is the ultimate goal or not, while agreeing that reducing the state is a common goal.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If you believe in taxes, and you won't debate those who don't (like the guy this website is named for and everyone who supports this site's mission statement), then why are you even here?
    The absurdity is astounding.

    Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax of some kind even if he had been elected president.

    Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    you won't debate
    Debate? Debate whom?

    Debate =/= listening to low IQ blowhards thoughtlessly repeat the same talking points over and over ad tedium.

    You don't debate anyone, erowe (except on religion). In order to debate, you'd have to have something to say. No offense!
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-07-2017 at 07:57 AM.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Both countries have a lower standard of living when one of the countries puts up a trade barrier.
    This is absolutely true. Undeniable (at least in the immediate short-term -- long term, we can never know; too many factors and humans are unpredictable).

    But......

    Actually, before I say my "but..." let me disclaimer for all the partisan zealots eager to pounce on any deviation from orthodoxy: I do not support tariffs, I believe free trade is best. I'm totally on board the freedom train. OK? OK.

    But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living high enough? Is there some point at which it may be wise to say "I'm rich enough already; time to focus on other things." Things like, oh, the continuation of your civilization, the prospects for your children and grandchildren in their lives. Or how about the ability of those of moderate ability and IQ -- the great big, fat center of the bell curve -- to find any gainful, meaningful employment?

    Or is that all against the rules? Is the only thing we're allowed to care about the Annual Statistical Report on the GDP?

    It is not against the rules. One of the great praxeological insights of Mises, Rothbard, et. al., is that value is subjective. There exists no objective interpersonal value unit: we find no such unit in "Utils," and we certainly do not in "dollars."

    So, the consummately narcissistic argument of ZippyJuan that we ought not to have tariffs because then "I am paying higher prices" (Oh noes!) and so "I have less money" (Stop it! The horror!) is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone, other than himself. And perhaps other narcissists.

    On the other hand, arguments such as Tod Evans' looking at society-wide effects of policies, considering the effects on other human beings such as "maybe the employees who still have a job," and thinking about the long-term effects on the next generations, this kind of broader thinking is going to seem much more mature and responsible to, well, anyone who cares about the future and is not a rabid narcissist or blind partisan. That is: all normal, decent people.

    Just some thoughts! Just some thoughts.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    The absurdity is astounding.

    Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax of some kind even if he had been elected president.

    Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.
    The person I was responding to wasn't just saying there would be taxes of some kind, but that they are a positive good which he supports.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Debate? Debate whom?
    You're replying to the wrong person. My reference to him not debating was a paraphrase of what he had said in the quote box that anyone can see right at the top of my post.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    The person I was responding to wasn't just saying there would be taxes of some kind, but that they are a positive good which he supports.

    I said no such thing. I said Tariffs are less bad, and have some good side effects. Some government and therefore some taxes are necessary, and tariffs are part of the best solution to that problem.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I said no such thing. I said Tariffs are less bad, and have some good side effects. Some government and therefore some taxes are necessary, and tariffs are part of the best solution to that problem.
    So you do positively support taxes as a means of funding what you consider to be necessary government.

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    The absurdity is astounding.

    Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax of some kind even if he had been elected president.

    Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.
    In fact, Ron Paul supports taxes as a local and state level (he's advocated for government at those levels)...he just hates federal taxes. When I mentioned to him how state taxes where much higher pre-1913, he said he wouldn't have a problem with that and even agreed that some states with low taxes and low governance would suffer for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    This is absolutely true. Undeniable (at least in the immediate short-term -- long term, we can never know; too many factors and humans are unpredictable).

    But......

    Actually, before I say my "but..." let me disclaimer for all the partisan zealots eager to pounce on any deviation from orthodoxy: I do not support tariffs, I believe free trade is best. I'm totally on board the freedom train. OK? OK.

    But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living high enough? Is there some point at which it may be wise to say "I'm rich enough already; time to focus on other things." Things like, oh, the continuation of your civilization, the prospects for your children and grandchildren in their lives. Or how about the ability of those of moderate ability and IQ -- the great big, fat center of the bell curve -- to find any gainful, meaningful employment?

    Or is that all against the rules? Is the only thing we're allowed to care about the Annual Statistical Report on the GDP?

    It is not against the rules. One of the great praxeological insights of Mises, Rothbard, et. al., is that value is subjective. There exists no objective interpersonal value unit: we find no such unit in "Utils," and we certainly do not in "dollars."

    So, the consummately narcissistic argument of ZippyJuan that we ought not to have tariffs because then "I am paying higher prices" (Oh noes!) and so "I have less money" (Stop it! The horror!) is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone, other than himself. And perhaps other narcissists.

    On the other hand, arguments such as Tod Evans' looking at society-wide effects of policies, considering the effects on other human beings such as "maybe the employees who still have a job," and thinking about the long-term effects on the next generations, this kind of broader thinking is going to seem much more mature and responsible to, well, anyone who cares about the future and is not a rabid narcissist or blind partisan. That is: all normal, decent people.

    Just some thoughts! Just some thoughts.
    Basically, your argument is, what is so wrong with society as a whole willing to give up some kind efficiency or productivity for other things?

    I agree that the vast majority of studies conclude that free trade is a win-win-win (we win, our trade partners win, the whole world wins). But those studies look at what has historically happened; jobs that fled overseas were replaced by domestic jobs in new industries. In a paradigm where the later does not happen...the studies would have to evolve.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    then why are you even here?
    probably cause it's an interesting site to him?

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And maybe the employees who still have a job..
    They would benefit too. At the expense of consumers. Should you be forced to subsidize the jobs of factory workers any more than you should be forced to subsidize the jobs of bureaucrats? Are the jobs that aren't created because you have to pay more money for existing products less valuable than the jobs that are saved?

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living high enough?
    Whenever I decide it is. Not when you decide it is.

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    They would benefit too. At the expense of consumers.
    Factory workers are consumers too.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Should you be forced to subsidize the jobs of factory workers any more than you should be forced to subsidize the jobs of bureaucrats?
    Absolutely not.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Are the jobs that aren't created because you have to pay more money for existing products less valuable than the jobs that are saved?
    What?

    Jobs that aren't created?

    What "jobs are saved"?


    Now how about the remainder of my post?

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    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.

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

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    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 .
    Kind of like the opposite of New Jersey. It is free to get in, but cost $3-$6 to get out depending on the bridge you take.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Factory workers are consumers too.
    Bureaucrats are taxpayers too.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    What?

    Jobs that aren't created?

    What "jobs are saved"?
    The jobs that supposedly wouldn't be outsourced because of a tariff. The higher prices leave less money for consumers to spend on other products, which means there will be fewer people working in other industries that otherwise would have been.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Now how about the remainder of my post?
    If you don't want to buy from a foreign company that pays their workers in fish heads, you shouldn't have to. If I do want to buy from them, I shouldn't be taxed for the privilege.

    And no, tariffs and free trade wouldn't be a discussion if not for the federal government's meddling. But that doesn't mean tariffs would make anything better. It would just be another nail in our coffins.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Bureaucrats are taxpayers too.
    I don't see it that way.

    These leaches live on honestly earned money forcibly extracted from the productive class....

    Playing games with their lucre allotment to make it appear as though they're actually productive is nothing more than simple propaganda.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    The jobs that supposedly wouldn't be outsourced because of a tariff. The higher prices leave less money for consumers to spend on other products, which means there will be fewer people working in other industries that otherwise would have been.
    I don't want tariffs any more than I want government interfering when the "factory workers" retaliate against consumers who buy foreign made goods.

    One branch of government makes it so it's cost prohibitive for factories to produce while the other branch protects them, then the third branch justifies the whole charade.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    If you don't want to buy from a foreign company that pays their workers in fish heads, you shouldn't have to. If I do want to buy from them, I shouldn't be taxed for the privilege.
    No you shouldn't be "taxed for the privilege" nor should you be protected from the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    And no, tariffs and free trade wouldn't be a discussion if not for the federal government's meddling. But that doesn't mean tariffs would make anything better. It would just be another nail in our coffins.
    If "we" continue to permit government to interfere in the markets then tariffs are no worse than the regulations and impositions a US manufacturer must suffer under.

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Whenever I decide it is. Not when you decide it is.
    Indeed. I do not presume to decide anything for anyone else.

    Please kindly do not imply that I do. Thanks.


    By the way, @The Gold Standard , have you seen my new project enabling you to put yourself on the gold standard?
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HitoKichi View Post
    My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it
    In a free market it drives prices up by forcing artificial shortages. But this isn't a free market. American employers must pay minimum wages, adhere to environmental and safety regulations, and in general provide a much costlier business environment than the 3rd world economies do. In theory, tariffs serve to level the playing field. In reality, government is always too slow to react to changing markets and the regulations end up harming the economy.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post



    If "we" continue to permit government to interfere in the markets then tariffs are no worse than the regulations and impositions a US manufacturer must suffer under.
    Yep.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    By the way, @The Gold Standard , have you seen my new project enabling you to put yourself on the gold standard?
    I saw the thread for it, but I didn't read about it yet. It's all a good idea, but as long as people are accepting paper dollars, I would be an idiot to pay someone in gold.

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I saw the thread for it, but I didn't read about it yet. It's all a good idea, but as long as people are accepting paper dollars, I would be an idiot to pay someone in gold.
    True. But I think if you read the intro page, it might answer that objection.

    https://Midas.gold/intro
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





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
  •