Tariffs Are A War On American Consumers

[TheTexan]

the difference is whether American has both the chair and the time and materials, or the chair and waning FRN's. Seems like there's no need for expensive protectionism in any case.

If the question becomes, would we rather have $60 worth in time and materials, or $60 worth in waning FRN's, consider this:

Implicit in the assumptions in the scenario, is that there exists someone in America who is ready and willing to work for $20. (If there wasn't, the labor would had to have been valued at a higher price so someone would work on it)

If you ask that guy, the American who is willing and able to work for $20/hour, he would say yes, absolutely, he wants the job.

As far as materials go, materials are only useful if they are, uh, used. Their entire purpose is to be used (and not conserved).

It is objectively better, for America, to build the chair and give its citizens the opportunity (that they are ready and willing to do) to earn a livelihood, than to spend the same equivalent resources to buy the same thing from China.

There is also national security benefits. America does not have to worry about China cutting off supplies of chairs during times of crisis. (A sudden lack of lawn chairs would be devastating to any economy)

expensive protectionism

I've already demonstrated that a tariff (absent costs of implementing a tariff) can be value-neutral to a country. Even in the value-neutral scenario, there is unspecified value in : 1) providing people with livelihoods, 2) keeping the money within the US economy to stimulate local trade, 3) national security benefits.

The value of those 3 things could easily surpass the cost of implementing tariffs.

Additionally, with the same math, I could also demonstrate scenarios where the tariff results in a positive value to the country. (Meaning, it actually saves the country resources by building it versus buying it). The cost of the tariff would then be directly offset by the resources that were saved from the tariff.

Additionally, the tariff could be entirely self funding. Any income from the tariff could be used to fund the tariff. I've already demonstrated that a zero-cost tariff can lead to objectively better economic choices as a group, so a self-funding tariff seems ideal for that scenario.

There are also of course unspecified cultural benefits to tariffs. Tariffs produce both economic, and cultural isolation. This allows America to build a culture that is actually distinct from the grey-ooze global mono-culture that is developing across the world.

As I've said before, if you don't care about America (a perfectly legitimate point of view), then sure, $#@! tariffs. But if you would actually prefer to see America succeed, I hope I've demonstrated that perhaps free traders shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as an option. Not even as a tax generation tool, but as a tool to make America stronger and keep it that way.

[TheTexan]

I would also casually point out, that in the prior scenario, James still has $70 in his pocket at the end. He could use that to buy an entirely new chair from China, if he wanted to.

(a lounge chair perhaps, just not a lawn chair, cus that's under tariff ^.^

[tebowlives]

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.

Might have asbestos in it. Cheaper quality. Someone falls through it and sues you

[PAF]

Might have asbestos in it. Cheaper quality. Someone falls through it and sues you

So far no problems, and still pretty sturdy ;-) lol

Unless people think that I actually need government to tell me what is safe

[tebowlives]

So far no problems, and still pretty sturdy ;-) lol

Unless people think that I actually need government to tell me what is safe

Get a seat cushion made in America to avoid getting testicular cancer from the asbestos laden chair. Keeping the boys happy, keeps the man happy I always say

[PAF]

Get a seat cushion made in America to avoid getting testicular cancer from the asbestos laden chair. Keeping the boys happy, keeps the man happy I always say

I do buy products from America, as well as from other countries, such as sneakers and such. I guess I’m one of those globalists who likes a choice when I buy lol

[tebowlives]

If the question becomes, would we rather have $60 worth in time and materials, or $60 worth in waning FRN's, consider this:

(deleted the boorish parts and the fancy words)
As far as materials go, materials are only useful if they are, uh, used. Their entire purpose is to be used (and not conserved).

Constantly turning over materials to generate income. The longer it sits, the longer the owner does not make money. At times, even to the point of taking a loss to move forward in the future

[osan]

The problem with tariffs is not tariffs; it is the paranoid, avaricious, rotten little human beings who make the conditions that lead some to believe them necessary.

Depending on the way one looks at it all, they become necessary under certain conditions. We've discussed this before, but let's do it again via real example.

Free market economic theory rests on several pillars, one of which is called "competitive advantage". When an inventor develops a disruptive technology, this is one form of competetive advantage. Another comes with reductions in labor costs. China enjoys a strong competitive advantage in labor costs, which was the primary reason American manufacturing fled our shores to live with the communists. The naive and/or morally bereft consumer assesses this based on shelf prices. "Oh YAY... look at this! I can get a ten trillion BTU air conditioner for only $1.99. But the competent and diligent analyst digs just a mite more deeply, and what does he find? China pays maybe two percent of the American equivalent labor rate. He knows that the large majority of the cost to produce is sunk into labor, which explains to him why Walmart can sell a ten trillion BTU window A/C unit for $1.99. The diligent analyst then asks the question: how are the Chinese able to affect so vast a disparity in labor costs? A little more digging and he finds his answer: effective slave labor. Also, were the people morally and educationally intact, they would be aware of this situation and would refuse to buy anything from China. In that case, Paine's "invisible hand" would be evident in the right ways and the incentive for China would be to stop being a raft of royal pricks. But no, price drives all and so once again the corruption of men sets the conditions of quality of life. It's quite pathological and I would maintain as yet that all evidence points to the wired-in need for humanity to self-correct via mutual destruction, rather than through the intelligent use of the brains God presumably gave everyone, yet most choose to employ as mere hat racks. We remain our own worst enemies, verily and truly.

The notion of competitive advantage is tacitly laced with that of "fair play". That which is tantamount to slave labor is not even on the same planet as fair play. Inventing a robot system capable of replacing all human labor in a given sector, while highly disruptive of those immediately affected, is nonetheless an example of a valid advantage which, all else equal, should lead the inventor to vast profits for a time. Forcing people to work under conditions such that when they ask for a five-cent raise per day ends them up in a reeducation camp for ten years, is not valid no matter how twisted-up one's moral outlook may have otherwise become.

People do $#@!ty things.

And so because of the crap nature of some people, many of whom end up in positions of economic significance, and when the net effects of their decisions lead to economic problems, "government" often steps in to institute corrections. The notion of such corrections is not invalid per sé, but once again the failure of such measures can be traced back to those of the relevant human bit players. In the case of China, slapping them with a slave labor tariff that would move retail prices on American shelves within, say, ten to fifteen percent of equivalent American-made goods, would likely be a fine measure all around. It leaves American manufacturers thinking thrice about fleeing to China. It leaves US consumers with a valid choice on market shelves. It provides China with two incentives, one being to build with quality competitive with American equivalents (and at times they do, but largely do not), and to ease up on the slave labor thing, a measure that shows us that the Chinese are not as "wise" as some seem to think. They are sneaky, avaricious bastards - welcome to humanity - and in some ways very cagey, but I've seen cracks in the image of their ancient and superior wisdom.

Tariffs are a valid defensive measure against unscrupulous economic tactics. Sadly, the people who are in charge of such policies are usually rotten with some form of corruption or a complex thereof, and such tariffs may then either be applied where they are not needed, or misapplied where valid. This is nothing new.

And so we come full circle. Rotten people doing rotten things give rise to the need for a valid countervailing measure to such rottenness. Abuse of the countermeasure then itself gives rise to more of the sorts of troubles it was originally intended to solve.

Rottenness on top of rottenness.

Once again, and repeat this to yourselves as may billions of times as it takes to make it sink in: WE ARE THE PROBLEM. We choose rot over the enlightened self-interest of a small set of practical virtues that, were they practiced widely, the quality of human life would improve by an order of magnitude or more. But we don't because we, taken as a statistical gestalt, are $#@!s.

What I see is the enlightened interest of the global elite who, perhaps conveniently having failed to educate humanity to "better" ideals, have been planning to take things into Theire own hands by culling humanity to what they feel is a "sustainable" level. Given what I see daily and if it is to be taken as "organic" circumstance, then I really cannot blame Themme for what they endeavor to do, the rank and raving evil of it notwithstanding.

Humans.

[CCTelander]

Hmmm. I thought the film actor was the famous one. Wouldn't have thought of a porn star. Now that you mention, isn't he the guy that had AIDS and was spreading's it?

I honestly don’t know. I don’t really know jack about porn stars as a rule. I just remembered the name because there was some kind of “metoo” scandal involving him a few years back. Don’t know anything about any AIDS thing. Sorry.

[Swordsmyth]

The problem with tariffs is not tariffs; it is the paranoid, avaricious, rotten little human beings who make the conditions that lead some to believe them necessary.

Depending on the way one looks at it all, they become necessary under certain conditions. We've discussed this before, but let's do it again via real example.

Free market economic theory rests on several pillars, one of which is called "competitive advantage". When an inventor develops a disruptive technology, this is one form of competetive advantage. Another comes with reductions in labor costs. China enjoys a strong competitive advantage in labor costs, which was the primary reason American manufacturing fled our shores to live with the communists. The naive and/or morally bereft consumer assesses this based on shelf prices. "Oh YAY... look at this! I can get a ten trillion BTU air conditioner for only $1.99. But the competent and diligent analyst digs just a mite more deeply, and what does he find? China pays maybe two percent of the American equivalent labor rate. He knows that the large majority of the cost to produce is sunk into labor, which explains to him why Walmart can sell a ten trillion BTU window A/C unit for $1.99. The diligent analyst then asks the question: how are the Chinese able to affect so vast a disparity in labor costs? A little more digging and he finds his answer: effective slave labor. Also, were the people morally and educationally intact, they would be aware of this situation and would refuse to buy anything from China. In that case, Paine's "invisible hand" would be evident in the right ways and the incentive for China would be to stop being a raft of royal pricks. But no, price drives all and so once again the corruption of men sets the conditions of quality of life. It's quite pathological and I would maintain as yet that all evidence points to the wired-in need for humanity to self-correct via mutual destruction, rather than through the intelligent use of the brains God presumably gave everyone, yet most choose to employ as mere hat racks. We remain our own worst enemies, verily and truly.

The notion of competitive advantage is tacitly laced with that of "fair play". That which is tantamount to slave labor is not even on the same planet as fair play. Inventing a robot system capable of replacing all human labor in a given sector, while highly disruptive of those immediately affected, is nonetheless an example of a valid advantage which, all else equal, should lead the inventor to vast profits for a time. Forcing people to work under conditions such that when they ask for a five-cent raise per day ends them up in a reeducation camp for ten years, is not valid no matter how twisted-up one's moral outlook may have otherwise become.

People do $#@!ty things.

And so because of the crap nature of some people, many of whom end up in positions of economic significance, and when the net effects of their decisions lead to economic problems, "government" often steps in to institute corrections. The notion of such corrections is not invalid per sé, but once again the failure of such measures can be traced back to those of the relevant human bit players. In the case of China, slapping them with a slave labor tariff that would move retail prices on American shelves within, say, ten to fifteen percent of equivalent American-made goods, would likely be a fine measure all around. It leaves American manufacturers thinking thrice about fleeing to China. It leaves US consumers with a valid choice on market shelves. It provides China with two incentives, one being to build with quality competitive with American equivalents (and at times they do, but largely do not), and to ease up on the slave labor thing, a measure that shows us that the Chinese are not as "wise" as some seem to think. They are sneaky, avaricious bastards - welcome to humanity - and in some ways very cagey, but I've seen cracks in the image of their ancient and superior wisdom.

Tariffs are a valid defensive measure against unscrupulous economic tactics. Sadly, the people who are in charge of such policies are usually rotten with some form of corruption or a complex thereof, and such tariffs may then either be applied where they are not needed, or misapplied where valid. This is nothing new.

And so we come full circle. Rotten people doing rotten things give rise to the need for a valid countervailing measure to such rottenness. Abuse of the countermeasure then itself gives rise to more of the sorts of troubles it was originally intended to solve.

Rottenness on top of rottenness.

Once again, and repeat this to yourselves as may billions of times as it takes to make it sink in: WE ARE THE PROBLEM. We choose rot over the enlightened self-interest of a small set of practical virtues that, were they practiced widely, the quality of human life would improve by an order of magnitude or more. But we don't because we, taken as a statistical gestalt, are $#@!s.

What I see is the enlightened interest of the global elite who, perhaps conveniently having failed to educate humanity to "better" ideals, have been planning to take things into Theire own hands by culling humanity to what they feel is a "sustainable" level. Given what I see daily and if it is to be taken as "organic" circumstance, then I really cannot blame Themme for what they endeavor to do, the rank and raving evil of it notwithstanding.

Humans.

We can't change human nature, so we have to cope with it as best we can.