Trump on Tariffs: Punish China By Taxing Americans - Ron Paul Liberty Report

[Ender]

China is a prison.

From my post above:

It is an even more courageous act when no one wants to hear the truth. As Frantz Fanon said, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

Or as it is explained to Neo in the film, “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

Most of the people I know personally are not willing to be unplugged. I assume my readers are, so seize the opportunity to be further unplugged and read Ron Unz’s comparison of America and China.

Then do what you can to unplug others.

[thoughtomator]

What you're not understanding is that the lower cost of manufacturing is more important than having access to more markets.

Ignoring that your strawman list can be explained by literally dozens of other factors, this quoted statement is extremely revealing.

It tells me you have never run or had a hand in running any business in your life.

Having access to customers is far far far far far more important than lower production costs. It is so many orders of magnitude more important that I can't take your arguments on this topic seriously moving forward.

Customers are everything to a business. You could have zero production costs and if you have no customers you have no business. You can't not understand this unless you have no experience whatsoever in even trying to run a business.

[osan]

I'd like to hear your answer about the hypothetical question I asked about free steel oozing out of the ground. Would you ban the use of it?

I didn't understand it, but no. Why would I?

[osan]

“IIIC approach”? You mean a Category IIIc approach?

If so, that doesn’t exist for Beijing.

What do they call it - Autoland or some such... isn't that used for IIIc approaches? Sorry if I got my terms pooched - I never got around to an instrument rating. Now I'm too po' and blind to fly anymore.

[Ender]

Also, contrary to public opinion, the Civil War was caused by tariffs.

Before history became politicized, historians understood that the North intended for the South to bear costs of the North’s development of industry and manufacturing. The agricultural South preferred the lower priced goods from England. The South understood that a tariff on British goods would push import prices above the high northern prices and lower the South’s living standards in the interest of raising living standards in the North. The conflict was entirely economic and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which also had existed in the North. Indeed, some northern states had “exclusion ordinances” and anti-immigration provisions in their state constitutions that prohibited the immigration of blacks into northern states.

If freeing slaves were important to the North and avoiding tariffs was important to the South, one can imagine some possible compromises. For example, the North could have committed to building factories in the South. As the South became industrialized, new centers of wealth would arise independently from the agricultural plantations that produced cotton exports. The labor force would adjust with the economy, and slavery would have evolved into free labor.

Unfortunately, there were too many hot heads. And so, too, today.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/...ry-journalism/

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Madison320]

I didn't understand it, but no. Why would I?

Then why would you ban the use of cheap Chinese steel or any other products?

[Madison320]

Ignoring that your strawman list can be explained by literally dozens of other factors, this quoted statement is extremely revealing.

It tells me you have never run or had a hand in running any business in your life.

Having access to customers is far far far far far more important than lower production costs. It is so many orders of magnitude more important that I can't take your arguments on this topic seriously moving forward.

Customers are everything to a business. You could have zero production costs and if you have no customers you have no business. You can't not understand this unless you have no experience whatsoever in even trying to run a business.

How many businesses have you run?

They're not customers, they're potential customers. It doesn't matter how many potential customers you have if your product costs a lot more than your competition.

[Danke]

What do they call it - Autoland or some such... isn't that used for IIIc approaches? Sorry if I got my terms pooched - I never got around to an instrument rating. Now I'm too po' and blind to fly anymore.

Cat IIIc is no visibility. No one that I know of is authorized for that, although once you are on the final segment of the approach, and the visibility goes to zero, you can continue...but the problem arises after landing, can’t taxi. The lowest approach into Beijing requires 300 meters of visibility. Anytime the weather is below 550 meters visibility, an autoland is usually required.

[thoughtomator]

How many businesses have you run?

I've been involved in executive management for quite some time, and have closed over a thousand business deals personally.

They're not customers, they're potential customers. It doesn't matter how many potential customers you have if your product costs a lot more than your competition.

What actually happens in this scenario is that the tariff-protected company can simply dump its product below cost until the non-protected company goes out of business, then it can charge whatever the heck it likes.

Mind you, there's nothing that says the protected company's products must cost more. They do business in the unprotected market on the same terms as the unprotected company.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've been involved in executive management for quite some time, and have closed over a thousand business deals personally.

Very nice. Best of luck.

What actually happens in this scenario is that the tariff-protected company can simply dump its product below cost until the non-protected company goes out of business, then it can charge whatever the heck it likes.

This is the same flawed logic applied to the so called robber barons of centuries past.

In practice there is a barrier to how high so called monopolists and exploiters can raise a price before entry into that sector becomes worthwhile for other investors and businessmen. It is precisely why prices were falling on major commodities during the time that so called monopolists had a grasp over a given industry.

Mind you, there's nothing that says the protected company's products must cost more. They do business in the unprotected market on the same terms as the unprotected company.

Protected and unprotected markets? At what point would you draw the line? To give the government false authority in one area of the market logically precedes them taking false authority in every area of the market and as well, you have no real basis for complaint after that fact.

Somewhere along the line conservatives have lost their faith in markets. We're truly all Keynesians socialists now.

[osan]

Then why would you ban the use of cheap Chinese steel or any other products?

Because it is the product of an entity that is not only causing severe market distortion, but is wielding huge market power in ways not in keeping with free markets, likely pursuant to adverse political objectives. Furthermore, through the administration and sale of its slave labor, China is in fact engaging in economic warfare. In case you have not become aware, we have been in a trade war with China for decades. That is fact.

[osan]

Cat IIIc is no visibility. No one that I know of is authorized for that, although once you are on the final segment of the approach, and the visibility goes to zero, you can continue...but the problem arises after landing, can’t taxi. The lowest approach into Beijing requires 300 meters of visibility. Anytime the weather is below 550 meters visibility, an autoland is usually required.

Thanks for that. I knew IIIc was zero visibility, but I was under the impression that ILS facilities for such landings were becoming common, and that was 30 years ago. Seems I was greatly mistaken.

Thanks again.

[Madison320]

Mind you, there's nothing that says the protected company's products must cost more. They do business in the unprotected market on the same terms as the unprotected company.

This is simply a false statement. The "protected" company can only buy supplies from it's own country. The "unprotected" company can shop around and buy from anywhere.

[Madison320]

Because it is the product of an entity that is not only causing severe market distortion, but is wielding huge market power in ways not in keeping with free markets, likely pursuant to adverse political objectives. Furthermore, through the administration and sale of its slave labor, China is in fact engaging in economic warfare. In case you have not become aware, we have been in a trade war with China for decades. That is fact.

The free steel oozing out of the ground is causing market distortions. In that scenario we'd be at war with the free steel using your logic.

[CCTelander]

The free steel oozing out of the ground is causing market distortions. In that scenario we'd be at war with the free steel using your logic.

Or the sun as per Bastiat's Candlestick maker's Petition.

[kcchiefs6465]

The free steel oozing out of the ground is causing market distortions. In that scenario we'd be at war with the free steel using your logic.

It would destroy jobs. We'd all be richer if they barricaded the steel and hired workers to mine ore. Then they would get paid and spend their money and then those people would get paid and spend money and then wealth is created.

[thoughtomator]

This is simply a false statement. The "protected" company can only buy supplies from it's own country. The "unprotected" company can shop around and buy from anywhere.

The protected country, while doing business in the unprotected country, can buy supplies for that market there. It doesn't need to buy those supplies from the other side of the tariff wall.

[Zippyjuan]

Because it is the product of an entity that is not only causing severe market distortion, but is wielding huge market power in ways not in keeping with free markets, likely pursuant to adverse political objectives. Furthermore, through the administration and sale of its slave labor, China is in fact engaging in economic warfare. In case you have not become aware, we have been in a trade war with China for decades. That is fact.

Is steel a part of that deficit? We import less than $2 billion in steel from China (about 1.5% of what we actually use) while our trade deficit with them is something like $550 billion. This is not about the trade deficit or Chinese imports.

[thoughtomator]

Somewhere along the line conservatives have lost their faith in markets. We're truly all Keynesians socialists now.

What conservatives lost faith in is that we have, in practice, anything resembling free markets.

That is the fundamental big lie that we now refuse to take for granted.

Once you get to that point, it's not a "tariffs vs. free trade" argument. It's a "tariffs vs. getting relentlessly $#@!ed up the ass by any and all comers" argument.

Free trade is a nonexistent strawman - a Platonic ideal that simply cannot exist in reality. It's an ideal to aspire to with trusted trading partners. But we don't have any trusted trading partners, everyone else has quite sensibly taken advantage of the giveaways that the oligarchic traitor class has provided them over the past FOUR US administrations. There's not a single country on this planet that now does trade with us on genuinely even terms. Forget about "free trade" - we're not even getting fair trade.

Archaic ideas that one-sided free trade was still beneficial were grounded in the assumption that entire industries and populations could not simply be lifted out of one country and deposited in another. Back when the theory was created, those were good assumptions. Today, they are incorrect assumptions.

[osan]

The free steel oozing out of the ground is causing market distortions.

No, it is not. It may exert an influence on the market, but "distortion" in this very narrow economic sense is something different.

ETA: we cannot control steel magically oozing from the ground. We can, however, choose whether to introduce distorting factors into an all-else-equal situation.

Distortions are not all created as equals. The invention of the laser distorted the markets and changed the world. This is what we call in the business world a "disruptive technology". Depending on how they make their ways into our lives, the disruptions can go barely noticed or may make the lives of some miserable for a while, as others benefit. Transistors, computers, aircraft, locomotives, etc. were all disruptive at one time.

Distortions that improve life are one thing. Those that are the result of machinations intended bring inorganic advantage under a circumstance that would otherwise not yield such an advantage, are considered harmful and not in keeping with the nature of free markets. Subsidizing national labor costs through the enslavement of one's population is not an "organic" competitive advantage, but rather one that is achieved through the violation of the freedoms of men.

How many people in China do you believe are able to afford American products? Proportionally speaking, very few. Who there, making eighty cents per hour, will be able to afford to buy a Corvette at any point in their lifetimes, all else equal? Not a one. The people doing business in Beijing are so wholly frightened at the displeasure of a foreign customer, they turn themselves damned nearly inside out any time someone raises an issue with a product and, most especially, a service. My wife sees is every week. She has to continually reassure them that she will not say a word to their bosses because it would likely mean the end of their employment and back to the farm for them in the outer provinces, so to speak. Those people, whatever other faults they may have, work like maniacs day in and day out. My point here is that the economic machinations of the Chinese government are not benign in any conceivable way, save perhaps toward themselves and their positions of power. Nothing they do in those terms bespeaks "free market". They are waging economic warfare upon the entire world and they are thus far pulling it off with a glow. Their slave labor market is, for all practical purposes, infinite.

In that scenario we'd be at war with the free steel using your logic.

That makes no sense.

[osan]

Is steel a part of that deficit? We import less than $2 billion in steel from China (about 1.5% of what we actually use) while our trade deficit with them is something like $550 billion. This is not about the trade deficit or Chinese imports.

Whatever we are buying from China would be part of the so-called "deficit". I seriously doubt China is paying their steel mill employees even 20% of what their American counterparts are paid.

[The Rebel Poet]

That makes no sense.

Ergo, reducto ad absurdum.

[Madison320]

The protected country, while doing business in the unprotected country, can buy supplies for that market there. It doesn't need to buy those supplies from the other side of the tariff wall.

So how do they get the supplies back home to the manufacturing plant without paying the tariff?

This is getting pretty funny. Your "plan" is that everyone in Tariffia is going to have to move to Freetradia to get around the tariffs!

[Madison320]

It would destroy jobs. We'd all be richer if they barricaded the steel and hired workers to mine ore. Then they would get paid and spend their money and then those people would get paid and spend money and then wealth is created.

That's a good point. Also building the barricades will create jobs and so will guarding it. Maybe we could pretend there really is free steel oozing out of the ground so we can put this awesome Keynesian job creating plan into effect. We can put thoughtomator in charge. He's a businessman.

[Madison320]

Having access to customers is far far far far far more important than lower production costs. It is so many orders of magnitude more important that I can't take your arguments on this topic seriously moving forward.

I'm 99% sure it's the other way around.

I'd be willing to bet that any businessman would rather have lower production costs. What good are potential customers if you are selling something that's way overpriced. nobody is going to buy it.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm 99% sure it's the other way around.

I'd be willing to bet that any businessman would rather have lower production costs. What good are potential customers if you are selling something that's way overpriced. nobody is going to buy it.

More people will buy overpriced things than will buy from a company that can't sell to them.

[Madison320]

More people will buy overpriced things than will buy from a company that can't sell to them.

I posted this earlier:

"Suppose Tariffia and Freetradia both want to make cars. Freetradia has all the steel. Tariffia has all the rubber. Since Freetradia has access to cheap steel and rubber it can make cars for 10K. Tariffia has no steel so it has to use carbon fiber and other various expensive or inferior substances. Tariffia can make cars for 100K. If you live in Freetradia you are going to buy the 10K cars manufactured locally, not the 100K cars manufactured in Tariffia. The manufacturer in Tariffia, even though permitted to sell to Freetradia, won't be able to sell any cars there because it costs to much to make them. On top of that Tariffia won't even be able to sell many cars to their own citizens because they're TOO EXPENSIVE!"

In other words Tariffia will only be able to sell cars in Tariffia due to a comparative disadvantage, and Freetradia will only be able to sell cars in Freetradia due to fiat. But the Freetradia company will be able to sell MORE cars because they are more affordable. This example assumes equal populations in Tariffia and Freetradia.

[Swordsmyth]

I posted this earlier:

"Suppose Tariffia and Freetradia both want to make cars. Freetradia has all the steel. Tariffia has all the rubber. Since Freetradia has access to cheap steel and rubber it can make cars for 10K. Tariffia has no steel so it has to use carbon fiber and other various expensive or inferior substances. Tariffia can make cars for 100K. If you live in Freetradia you are going to buy the 10K cars manufactured locally, not the 100K cars manufactured in Tariffia. The manufacturer in Tariffia, even though permitted to sell to Freetradia, won't be able to sell any cars there because it costs to much to make them. On top of that Tariffia won't even be able to sell many cars to their own citizens because they're TOO EXPENSIVE!"

In other words Tariffia will only be able to sell cars in Tariffia due to a comparative disadvantage, and Freetradia will only be able to sell cars in Freetradia due to fiat. But the Freetradia company will be able to sell MORE cars because they are more affordable. This example assumes equal populations in Tariffia and Freetradia.

It also assumes no subsidies in Tariffia, if Tariffia is rich enough it can destroy Freetraia's industries through dumping and then conquer it financially or militarily.

[Madison320]

It also assumes no subsidies in Tariffia, if Tariffia is rich enough it can destroy Freetraia's industries through dumping and then conquer it financially or militarily.

We're talking about tariffs.