Ron Paul Against Tariffs

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Zippyjuan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're also advocating for other nations to also follow this advice. Basically, there are some products that are so crucial that one nation should not depend upon another for that product. In particular, international trade in food should probably be curtailed, and each nation should produce it's own.

If we did that, things like fresh fruits and vegetables would only be available part of the year. And be a lot more expensive. A lot of our seafood is imported. The US makes a lot of money exporting food. Money wise, we export far more than we import. Imports give us much more variety and low prices though.

[angelatc]

Liberals favor the steel tariffs because it will support union (high paying) jobs.

You were in another shred shredding the concept of tariffs because it drove the price of steel higher. WHen I pointed out that union wages do the same thing, you left the thread.

[ProBlue33]

Just so I'm clear; does that imply that if the Canadian dollar were up in comparison to the US dollar then you would be "talking about" vegetables imported from Canada (i.e.: advocating placing a tariff on vegetables imported from Canada)?

First this isn't a business letter I don't care about the correct "There or Their" and I know the difference, auto-correct puts in what it does

As to the other part if the Canadian dollar is at par they won't be buying those hothouse peppers because then it's not worth it, when the dollar is at 75 cents it's like getting a 25% discount. Transversely when the dollar is at par Canadians buys tons of Americans foods like cheese and wine because it's a good deal for them, they just have to make sure they don't bring too much back or the Canadian border guards get them. Imports go way up and the importers and exporters under NAFTA do very well.

The dollar is going to bounce around, at about 80 cents is where it starts being worth it, and at 70 cents it's almost always a better deal. And if there is an over supply of a perishable commodity such as a hothouse red peeper then it's even a better deal. Let the free markets handle this within a reasonable geographic area among allies, with no tariffs.

But geopolitical foes should not be supplying our food at any discount, it's just not smart, again put high tariffs on them to discourage it from happening.

[Anti Federalist]

It makes Ron Paul a libertarian. You don't just disagree with him on some marginal issue. You disagree with him on his whole philosophy.

Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.

I want more freedom for more people.

Freedom is not a priority issue with most people, they frankly could care less.

Jobs, income, keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table takes a much higher priority.

When they lose that, they will embrace the most anti freedom platforms you can imagine, facism, communism and so on.

[nikcers]

Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.

I want more freedom for more people.

Freedom is not a priority issue with most people, they frankly could care less.

Jobs, income, keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table takes a much higher priority.

When they lose that, they will embrace the most anti freedom platforms you can imagine, facism, communism and so on.

Unless you disagree on the use of government force and the entire philosophy is the rejection of that use.

[nikcers]

The difference is Ron Paul isn't an authoritarian. Even if Ron Paul was for protectionist tarrifs and he was president he wouldn't think its the presidents authority to do it and just do whatever he wants.

[Superfluous Man]

Simply because you disagree on one issue does not mean you reject the whole philosophy.

Not always. In this case it does. And I wasn't saying that to any and all people who simply say that tariffs are less bad than the income tax or something. I was replying to the OP and the arguments made there.

[Anti Federalist]

Unless you disagree on the use of government force and the entire philosophy is the rejection of that use.

Yeah, well, I suppose that requires pinning RP down on whether he is an anarchist or not.

There is no such thing as government without force, somebody, somewhere will be forced to do something they do not want to do.

[nikcers]

Yeah, well, I suppose that requires pinning RP down on whether he is an anarchist or not.

There is no such thing as government without force, somebody, somewhere will be forced to do something they do not want to do.

Where does the president get this authority?

[Swordsmyth]

Where does the president get this authority?

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.

[nikcers]

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.

When did this happen?

[nikcers]

Congress gave it to him.

I won't respond beyond that because this thread isn't about anarchy vs. minarchy.

Authoritarianism vs libertarianism is more accurate.

[Swordsmyth]

When did this happen?

I'm not sure when but Congress passed a law giving the President broad authority on trade, it can be argued that they shouldn't have delegated the power or you can argue as they did that Congress is incapable of negotiating with foreign countries because it is the worlds largest committee with too many special interests fighting.

[axiomata]

I'm not sure when but Congress passed a law giving the President broad authority on trade, it can be argued that they shouldn't have delegated the power or you can argue as they did that Congress is incapable of negotiating with foreign countries because it is the worlds largest committee with too many special interests fighting.

No, they said president can apply tarrifs in the name of national defense. We can easily produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs. Not to mention access to friendly neighbors' exports. It is just an excuse to coopt tax raising authority that he does not have.

[Swordsmyth]

No, they said president can apply tarrifs in the name of national defense. We can easily produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs. Not to mention access to friendly neighbors' exports. It is just an excuse to coopt tax raising authority that he does not have.

Without the tariff we wouldn't keep the ability to produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs for much longer, China is deliberately trying to destroy other countries' ability to produce steel.

[axiomata]

Without the tariff we wouldn't keep the ability to produce enough steel domestically for the Pentagon's needs for much longer, China is deliberately trying to destroy other countries' ability to produce steel.

" U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about three percent of U.S. production. Therefore, DoD does not believe that the findings in the reports impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel·or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.”

[Swordsmyth]

" U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about three percent of U.S. production. Therefore, DoD does not believe that the findings in the reports impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel·or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.”

It wouldn't be long before we didn't produce any steel.

[Superfluous Man]

It wouldn't be long before we didn't produce any steel.

I highly doubt that.

But even if it were so, so what? If we don't need to produce steel, we should't waste resources producing it. And if we ever need to again, we can start again. If you or somebody else doesn't like that plan and want to waste your own money producing steel when it's not economically profitable, then go right ahead without forcing other people to bear any of the economic burder for doing that if they don't want to.

At the end of the day, whether we the people want to produce steel or not is our choice, not the president's and not Congress's.

[Swordsmyth]

I highly doubt that.

But even if it were so, so what? If we don't need to produce steel, we should't waste resources producing it. And if we ever need to again, we can start again. If you or somebody else doesn't like that plan and want to waste your own money producing steel when it's not economically profitable, then go right ahead without forcing other people to bear any of the economic burder for doing that if they don't want to.

At the end of the day, whether we the people want to produce steel or not is our choice, not the president's and not Congress's.

You can't just start up steel production over a weekend, especially in sufficient quantities to support a war effort.

The Confederacy lost the war between the states for want of heavy industry:

There are thresholds below which you no longer have the capacity to rebuild in any reasonable length of time or before you are forced to surrender to the enemy, the south lost the war of northern aggression because as Rhett Butler puts it in Gone with the wind "there is not a cannon factory in the whole south".