Tariffs Are A War On American Consumers

[PAF]

May 17, 2024

https://rumble.com/v4vs6yn-tariffs-a...jcwo5&mc=2sdbb

One of the greatest ironies in America, of all places, is that politicians have the citizens cheering on the raising of taxes on themselves. How so? Well, whenever the government spends money it doesn’t have, that the Federal Reserve counterfeits into existence, that’s a tax. It’s called inflation! The tax is paid by higher prices for the things we buy. When you go to the supermarket, remember the $6 Trillion "Covid Relief.” We’re still paying for that “relief.” When government “slaps tariffs” on another country, that’s a tax on the American consumers! Americans have bought into the “I’m from government and I’m here to help,” line, and we’re paying dearly for it.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/

[CaptUSA]

So, does this stop SS from libeling Ron Paul???

[PAF]

So, does this stop SS from libeling Ron Paul???

The SS, the black-uniformed elite corps and self-described “political soldiers” of the Nazi Party, would be opposed to Ron Paul and anything to do with liberty.

Oh, my bad, you meant SS:

Tariffs... have benefits as well.

They protect your independence and liberty...

[CaptUSA]

The SS, the black-uniformed elite corps and self-described “political soldiers” of the Nazi Party, would be opposed to Ron Paul and anything to do with liberty.

Oh, my bad, you meant SS:

[Swordsmyth]

The SS, the black-uniformed elite corps and self-described “political soldiers” of the Nazi Party, would be opposed to Ron Paul and anything to do with liberty.

Oh, my bad, you meant SS:

[Swordsmyth]

Ron is wrong.
He is sometimes.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron is wrong.
He is sometimes.

What is the timestamp and context in the OP video?

[CCTelander]

What is the timestamp and context in the OP video?

The timestamp and context of what exactly? I'm at a loss as to what you're looking for here.

[Swordsmyth]

What is the timestamp and context in the OP video?

Starts at about 11:00.
He's saying tariffs are bad and cause inflation.

Tariffs do not cause inflation, money printing causes inflation and deindustrialization causes money printing.

He also agrees our money pays the tariffs, but often the foreign industry will lower its prices to compensate, and if you buy domestic products the government doesn't get any tariff money.

He says the market can solve the problem, but it can't when the problem is slave labor and subsidization in tyrannical countries.

He says free trade is a moral issue when it supports slavery and tyranny.

He says we need to make the government live within its means even though buying slave labor produced and communist subsidized masks the market signals that might cause people to do something about it.
Free trade literally enables deficit spending and inflation because it robs foreign slaves and taxpayers to give a temporary perception of prosperity.

They talk about big corporations, big corporations LOVE Free Trade, they can afford to move to China to take advantage of slave labor while their smaller domestic competition cannot.
Free Trade creates giant globalist mega corporations and eliminates competition.
It also destroys the labor market by sending all the jobs overseas so they can reduce the wages they pay in all the remaining industries, and that wage loss is much bigger than any reduction in prices that comes from buying from slavers.

Free Trade is to the physical economy what the Federal Reserve is to the monetary system, a way for those with power and wealth to take an even bigger lion's share of future productivity and prevent anyone lower down from rising to compete with them.
Instead of a magic money machine it's a magic box to extract assets from without having to play by the same rules as those who have no access to it, especially those pesky rules about slavery and government subsidies.
It destroys independence, sovereignty, the political power of the average man, and liberty.

[CCTelander]

Starts at about 11:00.
He's saying tariffs are bad and cause inflation.

Tariffs do not cause inflation, money printing causes inflation and deindustrialization causes money printing.

He also agrees our money pays the tariffs, but often the foreign industry will lower its prices to compensate, and if you buy domestic products the government doesn't get any tariff money.

He says the market can solve the problem, but it can't when the problem is slave labor and subsidization in tyrannical countries.

He says free trade is a moral issue when it supports slavery and tyranny.

He says we need to make the government live within its means even though buying slave labor produced and communist subsidized masks the market signals that might cause people to do something about it.
Free trade literally enables deficit spending and inflation because it robs foreign slaves and taxpayers to give a temporary perception of prosperity.

They talk about big corporations, big corporations LOVE Free Trade, they can afford to move to China to take advantage of slave labor while their smaller domestic competition cannot.
Free Trade creates giant globalist mega corporations and eliminates competition.
It also destroys the labor market by sending all the jobs overseas so they can reduce the wages they pay in all the remaining industries, and that wage loss is much bigger than any reduction in prices that comes from buying from slavers.

Free Trade is to the physical economy what the Federal Reserve is to the monetary system, a way for those with power and wealth to take an even bigger lion's share of future productivity and prevent anyone lower down from rising to compete with them.
Instead of a magic money machine it's a magic box to extract assets from without having to play by the same rules as those who have no access to it, especially those pesky rules about slavery and government subsidies.
It destroys independence, sovereignty, the political power of the average man, and liberty.

The bold above is a lie. Ron nowhere said that tariffs cause inflation. In fact he repeated several times that tariffs DO NOT cause inflation but do cause higher prices. He then several times noted that the higher prices caused by tariffs combined with those caused by inflation were really hurting American consumers.

The rest of your comments are just more of the same anti-freedom garbage you always post on this topic that I don’t have the time right now to deal with. Nor the inclination, for that matter since truth on this topic falls upon deaf ears where you and a few others are concerned. I’ve wasted enough of my life trying to convince obdurately resistant people that freedom is better than their familiar, and therefor comfortable, slavery. Enjoy your chains.

[Swordsmyth]

The bold above is a lie. Ron nowhere said that tariffs cause inflation. In fact he repeated several times that tariffs DO NOT cause inflation but do cause higher prices. He then several times noted that the higher prices caused by tariffs combined with those caused by inflation were really hurting American consumers.

The rest of your comments are just more of the same anti-freedom garbage you always post on this topic that I don’t have the time right now to deal with. Nor the inclination, for that matter since truth on this topic falls upon deaf ears where you and a few others are concerned. I’ve wasted enough of my life trying to convince obdurately resistant people that freedom is better than their familiar, and therefor comfortable, slavery. Enjoy your chains.

It's the first thing he says at 11:00.
He says it adds fuel to the fire of inflation.

You aren't replying to the rest because you can't, it's all fact, free trade is anti-liberty.

[Brian4Liberty]

Starts at about 11:00.
He's saying tariffs are bad and cause inflation.

Tariffs do not cause inflation, money printing causes inflation and deindustrialization causes money printing.
...

Ok, here's the exact quote:

"Tariffs are bad because they push prices up, but those prices are going up because of bad policy, which adds fuel to the fire of the inflation of the devaluation of the currency."

First of all, we need to be conscious of the use of the word "inflation". For most people, "inflation" refers to price inflation. But Ron did not use the word "inflation". He said "push prices up". That is specific. It means price inflation, which can have many causes. Monetary inflation causes prices to go up. Taxes cause the price to go up. High demand and/or low supply causes prices to go up. It's just basic economics.

Ron Paul refers to both a tax increase in the form of tariffs causing prices to go up, in addition to monetary inflation causing prices to go up.

I see nothing inaccurate or wrong about what Ron just said.

And more importantly, Chris Rossini responds and points out that taxes never go down. Ron Paul's POTUS campaigns included a call for a flat tariff to replace and abolish the income tax. If that were to be partially put into policy, then for every increase in tariffs, there should be a corresponding decrease in income tax to offset. That would be acceptable. Even better to abolish the income tax.

In terms of trade wars, sanction wars, cold wars, and real wars, those will often include tariffs and embargos, which will disrupt international trade, and like all war, should be avoided.

The global race to the bottom and the rise of the global kleptocratic plutocracy is a different problem. That is a war that has been and is being waged upon average people around the world, whether it is elimination of the working middle class in America, or the use of slave and child labor in China. That is a problem, but I doubt a few individual tariffs here or there will solve that one.

[PAF]

...the use of slave and child labor in China. That is a problem, but I doubt a few individual tariffs here or there will solve that one.

I agree with most of your post, except for the last sentence. Here again, who decides?

Not trying to derail, I believe there is another thread where this has been raised, but I do hear comments every so often that tariffs will help "mitigate" this, which should not be justification at all.

[snip]

There is a distinction between a child that is working and a child that is being exploited through work and a child that is being forced to work. In many countries, children are a necessary part of the economic structure of their family and take on a job while still under parental protection and work in suitable conditions.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/w...nd-child-slave

[acptulsa]

So, does this stop SS from libeling Ron Paul???

Nope.

[CaptUSA]

Nope.

Well, at least now he says he opposes Ron's views instead of lying about them and pretending Ron Paul supports that tariff nonsense... Baby steps.

Ron is wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, at least now he says he opposes Ron's views instead of lying about them and pretending Ron Paul supports that tariff nonsense... Baby steps.

Ron does support tariffs to replace other taxes.
He just doesn't support them as defense against enemy trade warfare.
He's closer to my position than yours.

[CaptUSA]

Ron does support tariffs to replace other taxes.
He just doesn't support them as defense against enemy trade warfare.
He's closer to my position than yours.

What the living hell are you talking about?! Ron Paul's position and mine are EXACTLY the same. Because we come from the same school of economics.

We can accept low, uniform tariffs as a less objectional way of funding the limited functions of a federal government. We REJECT government protectionism!

Your position is the same statist claptrap we've heard for decades from lefties. You are completely opposed to Ron's position! Don't backtrack now. So much for those baby steps.

Ron is wrong.

[PAF]

Ron does support tariffs to replace other taxes.
He just doesn't support them as defense against enemy trade warfare.
He's closer to my position than yours.

Title: "Tariffs Are A War On American Consumers"

Ron's statement: "When government “slaps tariffs” on another country, that’s a tax on the American consumers!"


For more information:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tend-Otherwise


Btw, when is your new Bogus Book slated to be in stores? lol

[tebowlives]

Ron does support tariffs to replace other taxes.
He just doesn't support them as defense against enemy trade warfare.
He's closer to my position than yours.

Something like if you want to do it, it's better than the income tax. Low and even across the board and not for goods that are not made in American

[acptulsa]

Well, at least now he says he opposes Ron's views instead of lying about them and pretending Ron Paul supports that tariff nonsense... Baby steps.

A real baby step would be him skipping the step where he pretends Ron Paul agrees with him on the next subject Zerohedge gets the MAGA sheep all stirred up about.

[acptulsa]

Ron is wrong.

He's closer to my position than yours.

Never mind none of it is true. Even if it were, why would you brag about it?

Could it be you're a lot more worried about being in alignment with authoritay than with being accurate?

[Anti Federalist]

I am in favor of tariffs as a means in which to fund limited government functions and to encourage domestic growth, manufacturing and production.

I consider Ron a national treasure, a statesman of epic proportions, all while being humble, soft spoken and mild mannered.

We disagree on this position.

[CaptUSA]

I am in favor of tariffs as a means in which to fund limited government functions and to encourage domestic growth, manufacturing and production.

I consider Ron a national treasure, a statesman of epic proportions, all while being humble, soft spoken and mild mannered.

We disagree on this position.

I don't want to give up on you because once you understand this, it becomes obvious and you can no longer see it the other way. Protectionist tariffs hamper domestic growth, manufacturing and production. First, because politicians are incentivized to help their elite donors and it requires bureaucrats to monitor and implement correctly. Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production. Since those industries are harmed at a greater rate (though, it's dispersed), the overall growth is lower than it would have been otherwise.

I understand it sounds counterintuitive at first, but lots of libertarian thinking does. But once you see what's happening at the big picture, it's hard to fall back. Please don't give up on learning about this.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't want to give up on you because once you understand this, it becomes obvious and you can no longer see it the other way. Protectionist tariffs hamper domestic growth, manufacturing and production. First, because politicians are incentivized to help their elite donors and it requires bureaucrats to monitor and implement correctly. Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production. Since those industries are harmed at a greater rate (though, it's dispersed), the overall growth is lower than it would have been otherwise.

I understand it sounds counterintuitive at first, but lots of libertarian thinking does. But once you see what's happening at the big picture, it's hard to fall back. Please don't give up on learning about this.

Yet you can not ignore the other side of the equation. The push for offshoring, outsourcing and importing cheaper labor has always been driven by the government and the elite global cronies who have their ears. They have not been doing it for the benefit of the consumer. St. Greenspan himself admitted that the entire purpose was to enable monetary inflation (and govt deficit spending) and offset it by lowering labor costs. The crony corporatists wanted it to lower their costs and increase profits.

What has happened is not free trade. There is nothing organic about it. It was done for the exclusive benefit of the govt, and the elite crony corporatists. We have a fully managed trade system, run by a kleptocracy.

[CaptUSA]

Yet you can not ignore the other side of the equation. The push for offshoring, outsourcing and importing cheaper labor has always been driven by the government and the elite global cronies who have their ears. They have not been doing it for the benefit of the consumer. St. Greenspan himself admitted that the entire purpose was to enable monetary inflation (and govt deficit spending) and offset it by lowering labor costs. The crony corporatists wanted it to lower their costs and increase profits.

What has happened is not free trade. There is nothing organic about it. It was done for the exclusive benefit of the govt, and the elite crony corporatists. We have a fully managed trade system, run by a kleptocracy.

Per usual, you don’t fix a government problem with more government. That being said, efficiencies increase profits AND consumer value. They both would have increased MORE without government meddling.

[TheTexan]

Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production.

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

[PAF]

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

I need 30. I will use the $300 saved to hire the caterer for a small gathering at my place. Otherwise, I don't need or want 30 lawn chairs if I can't afford the caterer. Plus, the 30 from China have those neat little drink holders on the side, the American ones don't.

No, I don't care to go broke, for the betterment of others.

[TheTexan]

No, I don't care to go broke, for the betterment of others.

Fair enough

[PAF]

Fair enough

And now that I have the cheaper/better lawn chairs, I can have gatherings more often, which puts money into the local caterers in my area, keeping them in business.

[CaptUSA]

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

A few things...

First, you are forgetting about the $40 of unused material that James still has if you bought this chair from Li Zhao. That material can be used to serve other needs. It is wealth that was not consumed.

Secondly, the $10 I saved will be spent on something else. So in addition to the chair and James' unused materials, I can also buy $10 more worth of other goods someplace else. Let's say a haircut. Now I have a chair and a nice haircut and James still has his materials to sell elsewhere. And my barber has one more client that day.

Finally, there's the case of what Li needs to do to make his FRN's worth anything. He needs to circulate them back to the US.

So, for $70 I have a chair and a haircut, James still has his materials, my barber Jim is gainfully employed and Li has an incentive to turn his FRN's into usable goods or services.

If I bought from James, I'd have a chair and James would have $20 for his labor and $10 to spend elsewhere, but his materials are gone.

I know this is a simplistic analogy, but the math still works out.