Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 123

Thread: California is controlling the U.S. There is no shortage, only logjam.

  1. #1

    California is controlling the U.S. There is no shortage, only logjam.

    So I just bought some paint from Lowes. Not great paint, Sherwin Williams, but I needed a job on the shed. I'm a Benjamin Moore kinda guy but I had a $100 gift card. And it's just a shed.

    So I gave a paint sample. Asked for the best. 2 gallons worth. The clerk said she could do it. I said that should be more than enough, but might need another gallon later. I was worried because the paint aisle was bare. She told me, "No."

    Lucky me. I got the last two gallons of top-notch $#@!ty paint.

    I asked her why. She said "That's the last and there is no more at the warehouse. I was told they are sitting on ships off of California. Might be over a month."

    So why are so many container ships sitting off California being unable to unload?

    Mark Levin (I'm not a huge fan <personal, not that he is right or wrong, but I hate the angry New York accent, of but I heard the start of his segment on the same day), posited something interesting.

    California laws now forbid about 50% of U.S. truckers from moving items.

    Here's the segment. Don't even have to fast forward. Covers it in the first 7 minutes.

    https://podcastaddict.com/episode/129917757



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    It's tariff time.

    If we made things here this couldn't happen.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It's tariff time.

    If we made things here this couldn't happen.
    Yep. Repeal all other taxes. Replace with tariffs. I'm fine with that.

    Such a tax system has inherit benefit, of limiting how much revenue the government is able to collect.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It's tariff time.

    If we made things here this couldn't happen.

    Exhibiting your keen economic insight again, I see.

    Despite your pathological love for them, protectionist tariffs do not ameliorate this situation even the tiniest little bit. Manufacturers didn't move their operations overseas because of a deficiency of tariffs here in the US. In fact, most of the industries concerned enjoyed such tariffs, at least occasionally, before and during their moves overseas, and many continue to enjoy them afterwards.

    No, inadequate tariffs didn't cause the problem and they won't fix it. Manufaturers moved their operations overseas because here in the US they were burdened by massive overregulation and taxation. Reduce or eliminate those and manufacturing returns.

    Furthermore, given the current economic situation, with the liklihood of significant price inflation looming, adding the burden of price increases due to tariffs unneccessarily increases the economic hardship we'll all soon be suffering.

    Pitch your economic illiteracy elsewhere, please.
    Last edited by CCTelander; 10-16-2021 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Fix spelling error
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Exhibiting your keen economic insight again, I see.

    Despite your pathological love for them, protectionist tariffs do not ameleorate this situation even the tiniest little bit. Manufacturers didn't move their operations overseas because of a deficiency of tariffs here in the US. In fact, most of the industries concerned enjoyed such tariffs, at least occasionally, before and during their moves overseas, and many continue to enjoy them afterwards.

    No, inadequate tariffs didn't cause the problem and they won't fix it. Manufaturers moved their operations overseas because here in the US they were burdened by massive overregulation and taxation. Reduce or eliminate those and manufacturing returns.

    Pitch your economic illiteracy elsewhere, please.
    While you have valid points, sufficiently high tariffs would definitely bring manufacturing back home.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    While you have valid points, sufficiently high tariffs would definitely bring manufacturing back home.

    Perhaps. But even if that's true, it will never do it as quickly and efficiently as eliminating regulations and taxes. Plus, the cost is, especially under current economic circumstances, extreme economic hardship for almost everyone.

    https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0

    https://mises.org/wire/how-look-tariffs-1
    Last edited by CCTelander; 10-16-2021 at 02:47 AM.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  8. #7
    Why can't we do both?

    Reduce regulations, lower corporate taxation, reform torts and litigation and enact tariffs to spur domestic production.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Exhibiting your keen economic insight again, I see.

    Despite your pathological love for them, protectionist tariffs do not ameleorate this situation even the tiniest little bit. Manufacturers didn't move their operations overseas because of a deficiency of tariffs here in the US. In fact, most of the industries concerned enjoyed such tariffs, at least occasionally, before and during their moves overseas, and many continue to enjoy them afterwards.

    No, inadequate tariffs didn't cause the problem and they won't fix it. Manufaturers moved their operations overseas because here in the US they were burdened by massive overregulation and taxation. Reduce or eliminate those and manufacturing returns.

    Furthermore, given the current economic situation, with the liklihood of significant price inflation looming, adding the burden of price increases due to tariffs unneccessarily increases the economic hardship we'll all soon be suffering.

    Pitch your economic illiteracy elsewhere, please.
    INCORRECT
    People who benefit from American tariffs: Americans
    People who suffer from American tariffs: Foreigners
    People who benefit from foreign tariffs: Foreigners
    People who suffer from foreign tariffs: Americans
    CORRECT
    People who benefit from American tariffs: the American government & its protected cronies (and their employees)
    People who suffer from American tariffs: all other employers/employees/consumers/etc. (American & foreign)
    People who benefit from foreign tariffs: foreign governments & their protected cronies (and their employees)
    People who suffer from foreign tariffs: all other employers/employees/consumers/etc. (American & foreign)

    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    PlatformOur Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanActionDonateMerchandise


    HOMEFacebookTwitterYouTube



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    [...] and enact tariffs to spur domestic production.
    How does making the product of one American industry more expensive to other American industries "spur production" in those other American industries?

    For example, how does it "spur production" in American steel-consuming industries by making steel more expensive for them - by implementing steel tariffs meant to "spur production" in American steel-producing industries? Outside of special-interest cronyism, why should American steel producers be favored over American steel consumers?
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-16-2021 at 04:09 AM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Why can't we do both?

    Reduce regulations, lower corporate taxation, reform torts and litigation and enact tariffs to spur domestic production.

    Because tariffs always, ALWAYS cause more economic harm than good. Always.

    Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

    There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

    Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

    But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees,the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

    4

    It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for, as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.

    And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages. Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles.

    There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall, the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced. If we look at it now from the consumer’s point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff—though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected industries— must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages.
    https://mises.org/wire/whos-protected-tariffs

    See also:

    https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0

    https://mises.org/wire/how-look-tariffs-1

    Plus, in this particular instance it's completely unnecessary. Why suffer the significant economic hardship brought with the tariffs when the goal can be accomplished more quickly and efficiently by other means while completely avoiding the downside?
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Because tariffs always, ALWAYS cause more economic harm than good. Always.

    https://mises.org/wire/whos-protected-tariffs
    As noted at the source, that's from Chapter 11 of Economics in One Lesson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    As noted at the source, that's from Chapter 11 of Economics in One Lesson.

    Everyone who considers themselves an activist for liberty should read it. It's just THAT good.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    How does making the product of one American industry more expensive to other American industries "spur production" in those other American industries?

    For example, how does it "spur production" in American steel-consuming industries by making steel more expensive for them - by implementing steel tariffs meant to "spur production" in American steel-producing industries? Outside of special-interest cronyism, why should American steel producers be favored over American steel consumers?
    One contra-position.........Well maybe it's contra?

    The "importers" would be removed from the equation eliminating the 'special-interest cronyism' involved with moving money and goods overseas and all of the issues funded by those people.

    Then there's the issue of big city coastal people profiting from imports, the port people and all the industries tied to that rats nest that continually vote for more and bigger government to protect their interests and social issues.

    Honestly, from a purely political standpoint the vast majority of coastal monies could be redirected toward the heartland. But that has it's own set of issues.

    Leaving the choice between the devil you know......


    Afterthoughts on steel specifically.

    Shipping scrap and ore across the globe to be processed and then back again shouldn't be cheaper than in country production. And this is strictly the fault of government and her regulations. (And the suits-n-ties who profit on the transactions)

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    So I just bought some paint from Lowes. Not great paint, Sherwin Williams, but I needed a job on the shed. I'm a Benjamin Moore kinda guy but I had a $100 gift card. And it's just a shed.

    So I gave a paint sample. Asked for the best. 2 gallons worth. The clerk said she could do it. I said that should be more than enough, but might need another gallon later. I was worried because the paint aisle was bare. She told me, "No."

    Lucky me. I got the last two gallons of top-notch $#@!ty paint.

    I asked her why. She said "That's the last and there is no more at the warehouse. I was told they are sitting on ships off of California. Might be over a month."

    So why are so many container ships sitting off California being unable to unload?

    Mark Levin (I'm not a huge fan <personal, not that he is right or wrong, but I hate the angry New York accent, of but I heard the start of his segment on the same day), posited something interesting.

    California laws now forbid about 50% of U.S. truckers from moving items.

    Here's the segment. Don't even have to fast forward. Covers it in the first 7 minutes.

    https://podcastaddict.com/episode/129917757
    My previous post applies here to, government regulations are what's making it profitable for the coastal people to profit from shipping and foreign labor.

    Time to shrink government and her authority! Let the states decide what manufacturing constraints they put on their population, if Ca. wants battery powered trucks and the OSHA compliance then let them write it into their laws but don't constrain Al. with the same laws. Freedom from federal overreach/oversite will bring costs down for everyone and cut the profits currently being made buy places like Ca. and NY,NJ.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    One contra-position.........Well maybe it's contra?

    The "importers" would be removed from the equation eliminating the 'special-interest cronyism' involved with moving money and goods overseas and all of the issues funded by those people.

    Then there's the issue of big city coastal people profiting from imports, the port people and all the industries tied to that rats nest that continually vote for more and bigger government to protect their interests and social issues.

    Honestly, from a purely political standpoint the vast majority of coastal monies could be redirected toward the heartland. But that has it's own set of issues.

    Leaving the choice between the devil you know......
    None of that would "eliminat[e] the 'special-interest cronyism'" - it would merely change who the cronies are. It also doesn't answer or address any of the questions I asked. For example, how would the elimination of steel imports "spur production" among American steel consumers? If anything, it would retard steel consumption even more severely than tariffs would. Banning imports would effectively be the same as imposing infinitely high tariffs, with all the same deleterious effects (only greatly magnified and amplified).

    Absent market-warping regulations, importers are doing nothing objectionable. They are merely selling goods that are being demanded by willing buyers. Also, if importation is bad for America (and "America" here is one hell of a big mouse in the pocket), then American exports must likewise be bad for the countries that import them. IOW: Voluntary exchange must be a "lose-lose" proposition, and that is contrary to all the laws of economics (which, like the laws of physics, do not change just because some arbitrary geopolitical boundary has been crossed).

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Afterthoughts on steel specifically.

    Shipping scrap and ore across the globe to be processed and then back again shouldn't be cheaper than in country production. And this is strictly the fault of government and her regulations. (And the suits-n-ties who profit on the transactions)
    Then by all means, abolish those government regulations. But replacing them with tariffs (or, even worse, slathering tariffs on top of them) isn't going to solve that problem. It will only change who is being expropriated on behalf of someone else.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-16-2021 at 06:44 AM.

  18. #16
    It is not just tariffs and regulations that are driving companies overseas. The real estate bubble combined with property taxes make it too expensive here. The higher cost of living due to high property taxes and real estate forces employers to pay higher salaries. Another reason it is too expensive to produce here. Going more rural sometimes is not an option due to lack of local talent.

    Bloated local government which includes police, schools and their pensions is another factor that drives up property taxes just making it untenable.

    Every aspect of this is all caused by big government at every level.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    None of that would "eliminat[e] the 'special-interest cronyism'" - it would merely change who the cronies are. It also doesn't answer or address any of the questions I asked. For example, how would the elimination of steel imports "spur production" among American steel consumers? If anything, it would retard steel consumption even more severely than tariffs would. Banning imports would effectively be the same as imposing infinitely-large tariffs, with all the same deleterious effects (only greatly magnified and amplified).

    Absent market-warping regulations, importers are doing nothing objectionable. They are merely selling goods that are being demanded by willing buyers. Also, if importation is bad for America (and "America" here is one hell of a big mouse in the pocket), then American exports must likewise be bad for the countries that import them. IOW: Voluntary exchange must be a "lose-lose" proposition, and that is contrary to all the laws of economics (which, like the laws of physics, do not change just because some arbitrary geopolitical boundary has been crossed).



    Then by all means, abolish those government regulations. But replacing them with tariffs (or, even worse, slathering tariffs on top of them) isn't going to solve that problem. It will only change who is being expropriated on behalf of someone else.
    There'll always be cronyism to some extent or another as long as there's oversite, even on the county level. It's just the nature of the beast.

    There's no telling what American steel consumers would do but one must ASSume that given equal or lower pricing for American made steel the demand would remain steady.

    I'm not advising tariffs or regulation beyond inter-state regulation. Federal, or intra-state regulation, must be stopped.

    As to importers.....They're doing what any good businessman does, but as consumers, if given the choice of supporting coastal importers of foreign goods or in country steel mills for the same money......And knowing the social/political records of one group over the other, the consumer is left with a ethical choice instead of a financial one.

    Again I'm not looking to empower government at all, in fact I advise stripping federal oversite completely from all production. That would enable American companies to compete on the world market for goods sold in country. States need more authority not the feds, if Ok. wants steel production then let them decide how it's managed. Something tells me it'd be cheaper and faster to smelt and roll coils 100 miles from where they're used than to freight the raw materials halfway around the world and back and that's without tariffs or duties or any other federal graft that gives money to DC or the coastal communities.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    It is not just tariffs and regulations that are driving companies overseas. The real estate bubble combined with property taxes make it too expensive here. The higher cost of living due to high property taxes and real estate forces employers to pay higher salaries. Another reason it is too expensive to produce here. Going more rural sometimes is not an option due to lack of local talent.

    Bloated local government which includes police, schools and their pensions is another factor that drives up property taxes just making it untenable.

    Every aspect of this is all caused by big government at every level.
    Any one of us could come up with an extensive list of rural communities who would welcome steel production and the influx of talent in a matter of days.

    It's the federal regulations that stand in the way more than taxes/infrastructure or labor. People follow the money. Ask any steel worker if they'd like to move to a rural location and keep their salary and job, then ask them if they'd like to stop supporting all the graft in their current location.

    I agree wholeheartedly that big-gov is at fault for Americans consuming foreign goods at such an astronomical rate.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Absent market-warping regulations, importers are doing nothing objectionable. They are merely selling goods that are being demanded by willing buyers. Also, if importation is bad for America (and "America" here is one hell of a big mouse in the pocket), then American exports must likewise be bad for the countries that import them. IOW: Voluntary exchange must be a "lose-lose" proposition, and that is contrary to all the laws of economics (which, like the laws of physics, do not change just because some arbitrary geopolitical boundary has been crossed).
    If imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other countries is good for Americans, then it must also be the case that imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other states is good for Montanans. And Floridians. And Missourians. And Pennsylvanians. And Californians. And all the way down the line for all 50 states.

    But if that would be good for all 50 states (which is, after all, just a different way of saying "America"), then why don't the advocates of higher tariffs on goods from other countries also advocate for a Constitutional amendment to allow each state to impose tariffs on goods imported from other states?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    As noted at the source, that's from Chapter 11 of Economics in One Lesson.
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Everyone who considers themselves an activist for liberty should read it. It's just THAT good.
    Both of you (and the Hazlett chapter) make good points.

    But what remains unaddressed from your collective arguments and what is central to the issue at hand is thus:

    The national security aspect of retaining domestic manufacturing capabilities in times of crisis or war.

    At this point in time, our continued ability to even put food on the table, is dependent on a complex supply chain with a single point of origin that is exactly on the other side of the globe.

    Yes, the free market can address this, if it were allowed the freedom to do so. In the current sociopolitical environment it seems unlikely for the free market to solve this issue.

    Tariffs can solve this issue. Even Hazlitt acknowledges that tariffs accomplish their stated goals (at the expense of others).

    Ideally, we would live in a world with freedom and no taxes. We don't live in that world. As far as taxes go, I consider tariffs to be the least odious. It is limited to the borders, and efficient to collect. While there are impacts to everybody of course, the IRS would have no interest in me personally for tariff payments.

    Adding tariffs to solve this issue isn't the ideologically pure solution.

    But it will work.

    And if we can convince the idiots who run this country to repeal other, more odious taxes in exchange for adding tariffs, then I consider that a win.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  24. #21
    If the only taxes that were allowed to be passed were tariffs at the international border, I would be a very happy man.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    If imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other countries is good for Americans, then it must also be the case that imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other states is good for Montanans. And Floridians. And Missourians. And Pennsylvanians. And Californians. And all the way down the line for all 50 states.

    But if that would be good for all 50 states (which is, after all, just a different way of saying "America"), then why don't the advocates of higher tariffs on goods from other countries also advocate for a Constitutional amendment to allow each state to impose tariffs on goods imported from other states?
    Eventually the 50 states are going to have that option, how or if they exercise it remains to be seen.

    Fed-gov has proved it's unable to govern effectively given the disparate interests of the various states and their people. And in this age it's unlikely Fed-gov would survive another civil war leaving the only option deferring to the states.

    The states may/should remain united for civil defense but it's long past time to separate legally and economically.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    There's no telling what American steel consumers would do but one must ASSume that given equal or lower pricing for American made steel the demand would remain steady.
    But tariffs on steel imports will do just the opposite - they will result in higher pricing for American-made steel. After all, the whole point of steel tariffs is to prevent steel imports from being cheaper than domestic steel, and thus to allow domestic producers to charge more than they otherwise could have charged.

    And it's not at all difficult to tell what steel consumers would do under such circumstances. It's simple economics. They will do what buyers always do, ceteris paribus, when prices go up. They will buy less of something. They will buy less steel, or they will buy less labor, or they will curtail expansion, or they will pass the cost on to the consumers of their products (who will in turn buy less of those products, thereby inducing a cascading "ripple" effect ...), or any combination of these or other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    if Ok. wants steel production then let them decide how it's managed. Something tells me it'd be cheaper and faster to smelt and roll coils 100 miles from where they're used than to freight the raw materials halfway around the world and back and that's without tariffs or duties or any other federal graft that gives money to DC or the coastal communities.
    Pre-existing allocations of capital and economies of scale might very well make it cheaper for Oklahoma to "freight raw materials halfway around the world and back" - even without tariffs and duties and all that other bull$#@!. There are only so many steel mills that are actually needed to meet demands at any given time, and it would make no sense for Oklahoma to expend resources to build new steel mills if they could more cheaply and easily ship raw material to already-existing plants elsewhere and then ship back the refined product. This would allow them to expend those resources on other things rather than on mills that might well end up sitting idle some of the time because there isn't enough for them to do (and that were built just for the sake of "having their own" or "doing it themselves" and not because it made any economic sense). It's basically the same reason that most households don't make their own clothing anymore. Why bother? It's more trouble than it's worth. Comparative advantage and the division of labor are good things. It doesn't make sense to thwart them merely for the sake of localism (which I am all for politically - localism, I mean).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-16-2021 at 08:04 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    How does making the product of one American industry more expensive to other American industries "spur production" in those other American industries?
    Let's say you're Stanley tools in CT.

    To manufacture a hammer in China, ship it halfway around the world, get it here, package it for retail sale, ship it to retailers or direct to customers, costs $10.

    To make it here, costs $12.

    MSRP is $15.

    Even though the Chinese product is of inferior quality, the supply logistics are a nightmare (your last shipment of 100,000 hammers went to the bottom of the sea when the container they were packed in went overboard in a typhoon off in the Pacific), the in shipment "shrink" is significant, in spite of all those added difficulties, the $2 of extra profit in each hammer is too much of an incentive to pass up.

    A two dollar per hammer tariff would reverse that incentive, and Stanley would forge hammers, of better quality, in Connecticut instead of China.

    And still make a healthy profit on each hammer sold.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    But if that would be good for all 50 states (which is, after all, just a different way of saying "America"), then why don't the advocates of higher tariffs on goods from other countries also advocate for a Constitutional amendment to allow each state to impose tariffs on goods imported from other states?
    I'm all for it.

    I'd happily slap a tariff on goods made in, say, California, as matter of protest against their policies.

    I've had this argument many times here, you can go back and see my position has always been in favor of protective tariffs.

    I've always been in favor of an across the board 30 percent tariff on everything Made in China.

    Had that been put in place, perhaps China would not have been in the position to create, then release, a biological weapon on us and the world, that has now killed close to three quarters of a million US citizens.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Exhibiting your keen economic insight again, I see.

    Despite your pathological love for them, protectionist tariffs do not ameleorate this situation even the tiniest little bit. Manufacturers didn't move their operations overseas because of a deficiency of tariffs here in the US. In fact, most of the industries concerned enjoyed such tariffs, at least occasionally, before and during their moves overseas, and many continue to enjoy them afterwards.

    No, inadequate tariffs didn't cause the problem and they won't fix it. Manufaturers moved their operations overseas because here in the US they were burdened by massive overregulation and taxation. Reduce or eliminate those and manufacturing returns.

    Furthermore, given the current economic situation, with the liklihood of significant price inflation looming, adding the burden of price increases due to tariffs unneccessarily increases the economic hardship we'll all soon be suffering.

    Pitch your economic illiteracy elsewhere, please.
    I had to break out a dictionary for that one.
    No - No - No - No
    2016

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Because tariffs always, ALWAYS cause more economic harm than good. Always.
    If that's the case then why has fifty years of relatively tariff free (only on our side of course) "free trade" left the nation utterly bankrupt, middle class wages stagnant, the family destroyed as everybody has to get out and work with nobody left to raise children but the Marxist "school" system from infancy to adult, individual debt at record levels, manufacturing, the source of those middle class jobs, decimated, and an entire generation so beat down by not only the propaganda being forced on them but the economic reality that they couldn't buy a home and start a family even if they wanted to, that they are killing themselves with dope to the tune of 100,000, mostly young white men, a year?

    In the same 50 years how has China become the world's leading economic and soon to be political and military superpower, with massive restrictive tariffs in place?
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    If that's the case then why has fifty years of relatively tariff free (only on our side of course) "free trade" left the nation utterly bankrupt, middle class wages stagnant, the family destroyed as everybody has to get out and work with nobody left to raise children but the Marxist "school" system from infancy to adult, individual debt at record levels, manufacturing, the source of those middle class jobs, decimated, and an entire generation so beat down by not only the propaganda being forced on them but the economic reality that they couldn't buy a home and start a family even if they wanted to, that they are killing themselves with dope to the tune of 100,000, mostly young white men, a year?

    In the same 50 years how has China become the world's leading economic and soon to be political and military superpower, with massive restrictive tariffs in place?
    There may have been one or two other variables at play there. You know. Like hyperinflationary money printing, foreign aid, overregulation, micromismanagement, a few little things.
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  33. #29
    I would be in favor of 500% tariffs across the board.

    If it meant there were no other taxes.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  34. #30
    Even if all regulations were removed it would still be likely that manufacturing would stay in China.

    They have built a manufacturing empire with economies of scale that would take us decades to catch up. American companies I don't think would be able to compete, because we have $#@!ed ourselves into a corner and dug this hole for decades.

    We will also never be able to compete with their cheap labor, at least not until we get drastically poorer or they get drastically richer.

    In a free market eventually things would equalize. But we have neither time, nor a free market, for that to happen.

    This idea that we just remove regulations and we'll be back on par with China for manufacturing, is just not a reasonable expectation imo
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Logjam of War Contractor Fraud Suits
    By Working Poor in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2015, 09:18 AM
  2. Here's what's next in controlling your driving.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 06:57 PM
  3. What Now? Controlling the Narrative
    By Lucille in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 09:59 AM
  4. Controlling Interests in Fed??
    By Cinci4RP in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:30 AM
  5. Controlling The US House of Rep
    By american.swan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-02-2007, 10:47 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
  •