Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
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.
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.
I will not debate anarchists. Some government, and therefore some taxes are necessary.
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.
You can debate whether an an-cap state is the ultimate goal or not, while agreeing that reducing the state is a common goal.
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.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-07-2017 at 07:57 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Whenever I decide it is. Not when you decide it is.
Bureaucrats are taxpayers too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No you shouldn't be "taxed for the privilege" nor should you be protected from the consequences.
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.
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?
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.
True. But I think if you read the intro page, it might answer that objection.
https://Midas.gold/intro
Protective Tariffs are a form of government interference with the market, which increases inefficiencies and results in wasted resources. A protective tariff is also a form of corporate welfare, similar (in kind, if not degree) to the ACA's mandate that everyone purchase health insurance.
The protective tariff is also a violation of an individual's right to dispose of the product of his labor in the way he deems best. Discussion of such a tariff, I think, should be coupled with the discussion of govt subsidies to domestic firms, which cause the same problems. Imposing a tariff to "remedy" the problems that arise from other government interventions and taxes is a suboptimal action. It only adds to the problems.
A low revenue tariff as a replacement for the income tax would be a beneficial change, I think.
Government policies and legislation that restrict outsourcing of jobs is a violation of property rights, and also--as a form of government intervention--create inefficiencies in the economy. Labor is an economic resource, and government intervention to keep labor prices high create the same problems that keeping the price of lumber, or apples, or technical equipment high does. Passing laws to prevent outsourcing is a situation of the govt handing you crutches after it had broken your legs (through interventions like licensing and the minimum wage).
This is true. So let's extrapolate this into the real world. If you open up national borders for economic trade and you are competing with countries run by dictatorships with slave waves **cough, China, cough** and allow those goods to flow in, you are then, in effect, subsidizing slavery.
If the world were filled with liberty oriented nations with labor markets and regulations that were on par, the free trade philosophy works.
As of now, Canadians and Americans must compete with slave waves.
It's not free trade when one country has an army of slaves.
"Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park
We don't get to decide other countries' policies, just our own. At that point, you have the option to either only trade with countries who share our policies, in which case welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations, or else to maintain free trade ideals and just do our thing.
Also, lack of American trade hasn't suddenly 'fixed' any of the countries that we've sanctioned. Quite to the contrary, we've had much better results by trading rather than by not trading.
Could make that same argument between certain states in the US.
Not only that, but depending on whose measure of poverty and slave wages you use, a larger percentage of Americans live in poverty than Chinese.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Connect With Us