Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 123

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I'm not entirely sure what "comfortable" or "meaningful" are supposed to denote here.

    But whatever lack of "comfort" I might have with my guns & ammo coming only from China, should I be any less "uncomfortable" with them coming only from Canada? Or even only from Texas? For example, why should I be more "comfortable" with a tariff of X% imposed on imported armaments than with, say, a tax of X% imposed by Democrats on domestic armaments (which would presumably also apply to imports as well)?
    If the guns came from Canada you would still be reasonably sure you would still have access to the manufacturing facilities if needed. There is not a realistic scenario in the near future where Canada would be politically or geographically isolated from the US.

    The same cannot be said for China.


    Which is all the more reason to oppose tariffs on those items.
    I don't get your point, or you just don't understand mine. When there's a single source of those microchips, and it can be cut off (through war or crisis), that's simply not a good thing, however you choose to frame it.

    And in the case of microchips, it's not just a matter of comparative advantage and division of labor. China, Indonesia, et al. have better access to more abundant sources of the necessary natural resources.
    I don't know if that's actually true. China certainly produces more silicon than anyone, but silica sand itself is not exactly a rare resource. It's everywhere. Same with plastic and copper.

    Besides, the cost of materials for microchips is basically 0.001% of their sale value. The expensive part is the many huge machineries that are required to make it.


    As I noted in a previous post, there are very good reasons why households no longer make their own clothing. Artificially inducing them to do so again is not going to make them more prosperous in the short or long term. Nor will autarkic tariffs make America (or this or that state/locality) more prosperous or independent - and for exactly the same reasons. It will only serve to induce wasteful misallocations of capital for the sake of enriching some Americans (or state/local factions) at the expense of other Americans (or state/local factions), while making the former more dependent on a brittle tariff regime and the politicians & bureaucrats who implement it.
    There are good reasons why households no longer make their own clothing.

    But there really aren't any good reasons why the United States wouldn't make its own clothing, besides the 1 reason which dominates global trade currently - cheap labor.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-16-2021 at 12:03 PM.
    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!!!!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    The dominant reason that the US participates in global trade is cheap labor.

    And by participating in that global trade we are transferring our wealth to make other countries richer.

    So yes, you can save $2 on your hammer. But that $2 is now going to China, to further develop their economy.

    It's perfectly reasonable to consider it a good thing that we are making the world a better place. A rising tide raises all ships and all that.

    But it would be negligent to exclude this cost that America is paying, in any kind of economic debate.

    By design, America will lose its advantage, with global trade.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-16-2021 at 12:15 PM.
    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!!!!

  4. #63
    I'm at the point where I think we should just throw up a force field around the country that obliterates anything that tries to pass through it.

    $#@! other countries, $#@! global trade, and $#@! immigration.

    Maybe once a year the force field can open so I can drink Mai Tai's on a beach in Cancun. But that's it.

    The rest of the world can go $#@! itself.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-16-2021 at 12:19 PM.
    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. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Comparative advantage and division of labor are good things. But the returns diminish with geographic scope.

    The US is large enough to be able to fully 100% take advantage of the benefits that division of labor can provide.
    Acquiring a thing from "over there" (wherever that is) may be cheaper than making it "right here" (wherever that is). Or it may not.

    And that might change tomorrow for any of myriad reasons. Or it might not.

    But mere "geographic scope" (be it "global" or "national" or "local" or whatever) has nothing to do with it, one way or the other. The laws of economics have no more respect for arbitrary geopolitical boundaries than illegal immigrants do. And unlike the latter, the laws of men can do nothing about the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    The only advantage that China has over us is cheap labor. Which will eventually equalize over the next 20-30 years.
    quod erat demonstrandum

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    If you take "Comparative advantage and division of labor" to its inevitable conclusion,

    you will end up with centralized manufacturing facilities, like we see today.
    That is a bizarre non sequitur. It's like saying that by taking the practice of medicine to its inevitable conclusion, you will end up with centralized health care.

    Tariffs are the artificial and inorganic constructs of politicians and bureaucrats. Comparative advantage and the division of labor are not.

    Like the laws of mathematics, and unlike the laws of men, the laws of economics are not optional and do not operate on an opt-in/opt-out basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    From an economic perspective, it's great. Cheap $#@! is awesome.

    From a sovereignty perspective, there is nothing worse.
    It's got nothing to do with cheap $#@! being "awesome" or not. Expropriating some of the employers/employees/consumers/etc. of your polity in the form of tariffs in order to protect some other group in your polity is not "sovereignty". It's just (yet) another form of state-enforced wealth transfer.

    And if your "sovereignty" is so pathetically feeble that it can be existentially jeopardized by cheap $#@! from elsewhere, then either it isn't worth preserving or you didn't have it to begin with.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    There was this presidential candidate one time who proposed eliminating the IRS, and the Fed government would only get it’s revenue in a constitutional manner via (flat) tariffs. He was pretty good.
    That same presidential candidate also fully recognized and acknowledged that the low and general (not high and targeted) general tariff he advocated would nevertheless still have all the deleterious effects that I and others have identified in this thread. Which is precisely why ha advocated to keep it as low and general as possible, in order to minimize and more evenly distribute the damage it would inevitably cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Something about putting all your eggs in one basket comes to mind. Depending too much on Asian manufacturing and products can leave you in a bind. Add to that the dependence upon shipping. Leaves you vulnerable.
    This is tautological, as depending "too much" on anything is problematic - that's what "too much" means, after all.

    For example, one could just as reasonably say "Depending too much on domestic manufacturing and products can leave you in a bind."

    How much is "too much" is the very question at issue. The answer changes over time and with circumstances and is best decided by the free market. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those. And no tariff as such is ever going to bring us closer to one.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Acquiring a thing from "over there" (wherever that is) may be cheaper than making it "right here" (wherever that is). Or it may not.

    And that might change tomorrow for any of myriad reasons. Or it might not.

    But mere "geographic scope" (be it "global" or "national" or "local" or whatever) has nothing to do with it, one way or the other. The laws of economics have no more respect for arbitrary geopolitical boundaries than illegal immigrants do. And unlike the latter, the laws of men can do nothing about the former.
    I hold you in high regard so I would hope you would be smarter than this.

    "geographic scope" absolutely has "something to do with it". Physical goods require physical effort to move. The "laws of economics" are, after all, bound by the "laws of physics".

    quod erat demonstrandum
    Fancy words does not an argument make. I know what those words mean and they do not apply here. If you have a point to make, it's better to use your native tongue.



    That is a bizarre non sequitur. It's like saying that by taking the practice of medicine to its inevitable conclusion, you will end up with centralized health care.
    Dude, again, you are smarter than this.

    Division of labor, is by design, a centralizing force.

    Calling that a "bizarre non sequitur" is itself, a "bizarre non sequitur".


    And if your "sovereignty" is so pathetically feeble that it can be existentially jeopardized by cheap $#@! from elsewhere, then either it isn't worth preserving or you didn't have it to begin with.
    All sovereignty is worth preserving. Or at least fighting for.

    Why you would dismiss sovereignty so easily, is something I don't understand.
    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!!!!

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    ...

    How much is "too much" is the very question at issue. The answer changes over time and with circumstances and is best decided by the free market. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those. And no tariff as such is ever going to bring us closer to one.
    Exactly.

    When manufacturing has to shut down to wait for a key component from China, that would qualify as an example of "too much" dependency. When store shelfs start to go empty because of shipping problems, that would qualify as "too dependent" on shipping. I am more an advocate of diversification myself.

    On a tangent, one thing that is destructive of free and competitive markets is mindset and beliefs. Some would say it is ludicrous to not do as much as possible domestically. That is a mindset. Some would oppose that mindset.

    Yet if every major Wall St. management consultant and Ivy league college says that outsourcing to China is always good, that is another, just as destructive mindset. It works against the competitive market because it is a choice (prejudice) that is done based upon a belief that may or may not be true. Does anyone ever oppose that mindset?

    I have found via shopping around that I can often purchase better quality, lower priced items made in the US vs. China. You would be hard pressed to find someone who believed that on Wall St.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I for one am thankful that Texas maintains its own independent power grid for example.
    Except it didn't maintain it very well last winter.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    There was this presidential candidate one time who proposed eliminating the IRS, and the Fed government would only get itís revenue in a constitutional manner via (flat) tariffs. He was pretty good.
    He was mistaken if he though tarriffs are the sole constitutional taxes.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Except it didn't maintain it very well last winter.
    Except it did.

    The Left likes to make fun of it for losing power in some places.

    But in reality, the Texas power grid held up extremely well, considering that the bizarre weather we experienced was something that happens once every 100 (or more) years.

    The last time Texas had a week that cold, there was no such thing as a "power grid".

    Personally, my power did not go out even a single time during that whole week.
    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!!!!

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    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.



    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).
    I've not argued for or against tariffs but I am arguing for production as close to home as feasible. If for no other reason than to avoid 'entangling alliances'. I'm also arguing for localized production for serviceability of goods, even John Deere is buying the majority of their parts from overseas at this point and farmers are struggling to get their crops in and that's time sensitive.

    I'm one of those people who will pay more for made in USA but even that has been bastardized by lawyers/fed-gov to where the phrase doesn't really mean made in USA.

    I'd like to have the option of supporting labor forces with whom I have common ground when I purchase goods.

    Having the ability to say "I'm not going to buy from you" works locally and nationally so long as there's a choice of suppliers.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    The Left likes to make fun of it for losing power in some places.
    Power was lost in many places.

    More than 4.5 million homes and businesses were left without power,[9][10][11][12] some for several days. At least 210 people were killed directly or indirectly,[3] with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.[4]

    State officials including governor Greg Abbott[13] initially blamed[14] the outages on frozen wind turbines and solar panels. However, it was later discovered that inadequately winterized natural gas equipment contributed to the grid failure as well.[15][16]...

    The crisis drew much attention to the state's lack of preparedness for such storms,[18] and to a report from U.S. Federal regulators ten years earlier that had warned Texas[19] its power plants would fail[20] in sufficiently cold conditions. Damages due to the cold wave and winter storm were estimated to be about $20.4 billion. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Texas power grid was "seconds or minutes away from" complete failure when partial grid shutdowns were implemented.[21]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Personally, my power did not go out even a single time during that whole week.
    You were fortunate. Do you live in Corpus Christi?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Power was lost in many places.
    In total, not that much however. Even at its peak, only 5 million were without power.

    Given the level of storm that occurred Texas did remarkably well.

    You were fortunate. Do you live in Corpus Christi?
    Nope. I live in one of the Leftist hell hole city centers.
    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!!!!

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    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.
    How is that more or less crony than manufacturers, for example?


    Also what's with the scare quotes around importers?
    "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
    -George Orwell, "Notes on nationalism"

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.
    You're really selling me on the benefits of central planning.
    "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
    -George Orwell, "Notes on nationalism"

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    How is that more or less crony than manufacturers, for example?


    Also what's with the scare quotes around importers?
    "Importers" are more worthless baggage who produce nothing and profit off others labor just like every other suit-n-tie.

    No idea what "scare quotes" are?

    There's good cronyism and bad, if they agree with my ideology they're good, if they produce any tangible good they're good, if they profit off others labor they're inherently bad. If they push social or political agendas I disagree with, they're bad.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You're really selling me on the benefits of central planning.
    A flat universal tariff is not "central planning".

    Try again.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 10-16-2021 at 05:55 PM.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    A flat universal tariff is not "central planning".

    Try again.
    You think that you know better than the market. Your description is one of how stupid the market is and how it could be improved if only you were in charge of it.


    You even go out of your way to describe the market's failures which you obviously think should cause it to change how it does what it does...
    "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
    -George Orwell, "Notes on nationalism"

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I live in one of the Leftist hell hole city centers.
    Ah, Austin.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    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.

    Tariffs are not necessary to ameliorate this problem either.

    III. NATIONAL SECURITY

    A third popular argument in support of tariffs is that certain industries, such as steel, are essential for war preparedness. People arguing this route may concede that steel prices will be higher, and the standard of living lower, from a purely economic point of view, but that it's better to lose a few dollars per year and have a guaranteed supply of steel rather than risk losing a war.

    This argument fails to appreciate that the free market is entirely capable of handling disruptions in supply. If the protectionist citizen who writes Letters to the Editor is capable of foreseeing an interruption in steel imports during a major war, so too can the tycoons and speculators in the steel industry itself. After all, they stand to make or lose billions of dollars depending on the accuracy of their forecasts.

    Consider the worst-case scenario where the U.S. imports all of its steel from foreign countries, and there is a large probability that there will be a major war in one year, and that if this happens every single one of our suppliers will cut off shipment of steel. What will be the market's response? Will steel continue to sell at its usual price, and will people in the steel industry focus merely on tomorrow's stock prices?

    Of course not. If the supply of steel should be completely cut off, the market price of steel would skyrocket (assuming the government does not take steps to prevent "gouging" and "profiteering"). Because of this possibility, speculators today will buy and stockpile huge quantities of steel at the current low prices. (After all, even if the war never comes, they can simply resell the steel at its original price, losing only the costs of storage. Steel is not perishable like milk or tomatoes.)

    In addition, if the war is expected to drag on for many years, so that at that point a domestic steel industry would be necessary, then it will be presently profitable for entrepreneurs to refit their factories so that a switch to steel production can be effected relatively quickly should war break out. And if, because of this costly refitting, the firms in question can cover their variable costs (though not their total costs) through production of steel, then the possibility of war (and exorbitant steel prices) will spur a domestic steel industry operating at a short-run loss in the hope of making up for its sunk costs once war breaks out.

    In short, the profit system will automatically lead private businesspeople to take precisely those farsighted, cautionary measures that the steel tariff allegedly promotes. The difference is, the private actions would only be undertaken if the risks were high enough to make the cautionary measures worth their cost, whereas politicians will enact steel tariffs in the name of defense even if there is no real threat of a complete disruption in imports.
    https://mises.org/wire/3-modern-argu...riffs-debunked

    In fact, tariffs actually REDUCE the nation's ability to prepare for and cope with crises and the outbreak of war, to wit:

    And finally, there's the fact that steel tariffs are likely to actually hurt the productivity of defense contractors (and manufacturers in general) in the US.

    Remy Nathan of the Aerospace Industries Association writes:

    This [aerospace] industry contributes to Americaís economic and national security in part by leveraging access to a global supply chain to produce the best products at the best price for our customers in a highly competitive international market. We need global sources of aluminum and steel to remain competitive, and demand for these products is increasing. Quotas risk reducing our access to these basic materials. Tariffs do not address all the necessary market conditions, such as energy costs, for new U.S. aluminum production to remain viable.

    Before issuing tariffs or quotas on aluminum and steel, Trump should consider the impacts of increased costs, decreased supply and disruption to the supply chain on a successful industry that is a key contributor to the U.S. economy. Our countryís history of imposing tariffs on raw materials like steel is not a good one. A study funded by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition Foundation in 2003 found that raised prices resulting from the most recent tariffs imposed on imported steel in 2002 cost more jobs in the broader economy than existed in the steel industry at the time.
    In other words, driving up the cost of steel and aluminum simply reduces the amounts of resources that are available in the US for military purposes.
    The "national security" argument is, therefore, just as fallacious as the various economic arguments in favor of tariffs. They just don't work and cause significant harm. There are better, more effective ways of accomplishing the desired ends WITHOUT causing the significant harm that always accompanies tariffs.
    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



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Tariffs are not necessary to ameliorate this problem either.
    Tariffs are not necessary to fix this issue, but it would indeed fix this issue. (And causes other problems, this is true)

    The options to fix this current situation:
    1) Don't fix it and just hope everything works out for the best (not necessarily a bad idea, but also risky)
    2) Apply free market solutions by opening up trade, cutting regulation, and setting the market free
    3) Use tariffs

    Which 2 of these 3 options do you think is a realistic possibility to actually happen?

    In fact, tariffs actually REDUCE the nation's ability to prepare for and cope with crises and the outbreak of war, to wit:
    I don't see a convincing argument anywhere in there. I just see 1 guy (who probably has his own biases/incentives) who is failing to convincingly make his point.

    The "national security" argument is, therefore, just as fallacious as the various economic arguments in favor of tariffs.
    I remain unconvinced that it is "fallacious".

    They just don't work and cause significant harm.
    "They just dont work" - even Hazlitt agrees that they work.

    "Cause significant harm" - this is not in dispute ( at least on a global level it is certainly true. One can make an argument that tariffs do not cause significant harm to the country that implements it, when that country is far wealthier than other countries. )
    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!!!!

  26. #82
    Thought experiment:

    Let's say every physical good in the US costs 20. Let's say the same physical good, can be bought from China for 15. Let's say the material costs for both countries is 10. Let's China has a 3 dollar shipping cost. The remaining difference in price is the cost of labor. Let's assume that both countries have equal manufacturing capability and it takes 1 hour to make a hammer.

    If I buy the US hammer:
    America gains a hammer
    America loses 10 dollars in raw materials
    America loses 1 hour of human labor


    If I buy the Chinese hammer:
    America gains a hammer
    China loses 10 dollars in raw materials
    China loses 3 dollars in shipping
    China loses 1 hour of human labor
    America loses 15 dollars
    China gains 15 dollars.



    The choice boils down to:

    Buy the US hammer:
    America receives a hammer at the cost of 10 dollars plus 1 hour US labor,

    Or, Buy the Chinese hammer:
    America receives a hammer at the cost of 13 dollars and 1 hour of Chinese labor

    Either way you look at it, buying from China results in a transfer of wealth.

    You can get 5 dollars in "savings" by buying from China, but America still loses 15 dollars of wealth every time that happens.
    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!!!!

  27. #83
    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 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.
    LOL

    Reducing tariffs absolutely played a large part on one end of the globalization equation.

    You are economically and historically illiterate. (and it's very recent history too)

    Are there other things we need to do? Yes.
    But you can't deregulate and reduce taxes enough to compete with slave labor and foreign subsidies/tariffs.
    (Replacing all other federal taxes with tariffs works on both ends of the equation at once)
    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

  28. #84
    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?
    It will increase domestic production of all industries and source industries.
    Only those resources unavailable here will not be positively affected and those can be exempted.
    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

  29. #85
    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?
    I actually think that interstate tariffs (limited to some fraction of international tariffs) would be very good and help with state independence against federal power.
    Absolute free trade between the states was one of the errors of the Constitution.
    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

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.
    There should be an absolute embargo on China because it is an actively hostile communist regime. (this should apply to other countries as well)
    We should burn Nixon in effigy every year on the anniversary of his trip to China.
    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

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    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.
    All of which existed before the modern "free trade" (other countries never played fair) craze.
    "Free trade" made the difference.
    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

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    There was this presidential candidate one time who proposed eliminating the IRS, and the Fed government would only get itís revenue in a constitutional manner via (flat) tariffs. He was pretty good.
    And libertarians have rejected him utterly.
    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



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Freedom in the market leads to efficiency, but not necessarily sovereignty.

    If you want sovereignty, there is always a price to be paid.

    I will always prefer sovereignty, over market efficiency.
    Sovereignty and independence and absolute requirements for liberty.

    Most libertarians will trade liberty for profit every time.
    They will lose both in the end but they are too short sighted to care.
    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

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    LOL

    Reducing tariffs absolutely played a large part on one end of the globalization equation.

    You are economically and historically illiterate. (and it's very recent history too)

    Are there other things we need to do? Yes.
    But you can't deregulate and reduce taxes enough to compete with slave labor and foreign subsidies/tariffs.
    (Replacing all other federal taxes with tariffs works on both ends of the equation at once)

    Well, at least you're consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
    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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •