Rand Paul: Trump's tariffs will hurt Americans...

[Matt Collins]

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tarif...d-paul-1974213

[TheTexan]

He said that these policies will also damage the mutual economic dependencies

Good.

"Economically connected nations have more to gain from cooperation," he said.

Yea, and that's just what we need, more "global cooperation"

[Matt Collins]

Yea, and that's just what we need, more "global cooperation"

As opposed to global war?

[spudea]

What a loser. Rand will never be president. He loves child slave labor producing cheap low quality products. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. They don't cause inflation. We had record low inflation rates during Trump's term.

[Dr.3D]

Couldn't he wait till after the election to argue about that?

[Matt Collins]

Couldn't he wait till after the election to argue about that?

Why? The best time to lobby a politician is during election season.

What a loser. Rand will never be president. He loves child slave labor producing cheap low quality products. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. They don't cause inflation. We had record low inflation rates during Trump's term.

You clearly fail econ 101

[TheTexan]

As opposed to global war?

Isolationist policies don't necessarily lead to more war, or even more distrust. It can lead to more war/distrust, certainly. But it's not an absolute given that anti-globalist policies would necessarily lead to more war.

On the flip side of the coin, yes, globalization does lead to homogenization, which should lead to less war in theory. But in practice, the path to global political/cultural homogenization is wrought with extreme peril and danger, and as of recent history, most wars have causes that can be pretty directly linked to globalism.

So, no, I don't think it's a question of Cooperation vs War. It's more of a question of Globalism vs Sovereignty.

[TheTexan]

As an addendum to my post above, I would point out that globalism is not a sustainable state. It's centralized nature is inherently inefficient, and those inefficiencies would eventually lead to massive wars and the collapse of globalism, returning back to a nationalist state.

Globalism is not a peaceful idea. It is by definition a policy of aggression. There is no "peace" under globalism, for it is at constant war with the individual.

[Swordsmyth]

As opposed to global war?

Globalism and dependency cause wars.
Who needs wars for oil if you produce your own?

[Swordsmyth]

You clearly fail econ 101

No, free trade does.

[Swordsmyth]

https://x.com/RonPaul/status/1849574087183536347

[acptulsa]

No, free trade does.

You fail econ 101 too.

Keep trying. You'll figure it out one of these decades.

https://x.com/RonPaul/status/1849574087183536347

That's the problem with bait and switch. Yes, the good part is good, but the tradeoff is still bad.

[Matt Collins]

Globalism and dependency cause wars.

Trade and commerce prevents wars.

Who needs wars for oil if you produce your own?

Yes, the US should absolutely produce as much oil as possible and then sell it for global market value. Econ 101.

[Matt Collins]

Isolationist policies don't necessarily lead to more war, or even more distrust. It can lead to more war/distrust, certainly. But it's not an absolute given that anti-globalist policies would necessarily lead to more war.

No one is advocating for isolationist policies here, and I'm not sure what your definition of "globalism" is....

Globalism is not a peaceful idea. It is by definition a policy of aggression. There is no "peace" under globalism, for it is at constant war with the individual.

If you're referring to global governance or some sort of global hegemony then yeah, globalism is clearly a bad thing. But global trade and commerce is a good thing.

[Matt Collins]

https://x.com/RonPaul/status/1849574087183536347

So first off, not really sure Ron himself Tweeted that. Secondly soundbites and memes are not the best place for nuanced policy positions.

But having been around Ron enough I feel that I can probably guess what he meant. And it would probably go something like this...



A tariff only tax system replacing the income tax would absolutely be an improvement over the income tax just like a national sales tax would too. All taxation is destructive but a consumption tax tends to be slightly less destructive than an income tax. But we all know that it won't matter unless spending is cut. And the political reality is that there is zero will in Congress to abolish the income tax, and replace it with tariffs, much less actually cutting spending.

[Brian4Liberty]

American Shoppers Will 'Bear the Brunt' of Trump Tariffs: Rand Paul

Donald Trump's protectionist policies will worsen the struggles of American consumers who will be forced to "bear the brunt" of the former president's tariff plans, according to Rand Paul.

Paul, the libertarian Kentucky senator who ran in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, said Trump's proposals would, in practice, "hurt the workers they purport to help." In his Wednesday op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, he warned that these policies could reverse the peace-promoting effects of free trade, and unite America's foreign adversaries.

When contacted for a response to Paul's comments, the Trump campaign sent Newsweek a selection of statements from the candidate's surrogates expressing confidence in his tariff proposals.

One of these, from Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes, read: "Trump policies will fuel growth, drive down inflation, inspire American manufacturing, all while protecting the working men and women of our nation from lopsided policies tilted in favor of other countries."
...
More: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tarif...d-paul-1974213

Trump’s Tariffs Won’t Bring Us Peace and Prosperity
Free trade lowers prices and pre-empts war. Why do some Republicans want protectionism instead?
By Rand Paul - Oct. 23, 2024

Ronald Reagan knew what makes a nation prosperous. “Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace,” he said in a 1982 radio address. That sentiment was in line with years of conservative policy. The Republican Party had long stood for free markets and free trade, principles that helped cement America as the world’s economic superpower.

Sadly, many in my own party seem to have forgotten these lessons. A populist faction insists on imposing more and higher tariffs that would raise the prices of everyday goods and services as well as destroy the commercial incentive for nations to live in peace.

Such advocates claim that tariffs protect American workers from foreign competition. In practice, they hurt the workers they purport to help. Consider Chinese-made electronics. When tariffs are imposed on products like smartphones and laptops, as Donald Trump is proposing to do, American consumers end up paying higher prices. A report from the Consumer Technology Association projects that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs could raise technology prices for U.S. consumers by as much as 21%. China accounts for more than 90% of U.S. laptop and tablet imports. Its manufacturers won’t bear the brunt of these tariffs—American consumers will, as the levy will be passed on to them in the form of higher prices.

This is basic economics at work. When we place a tariff on a foreign product, we artificially inflate its price and allow domestic producers to raise their own. Consider a Chinese-made widget priced at 50 cents competing with an American-made version at $1. By slapping a tariff on the Chinese widget, raising its price to $2, American manufacturers have the freedom to raise theirs as high as $1.99. The consumer is left with no real choice but to pay more. A 2019 estimate by three economists, published in the New York Federal Reserve blog, found that Mr. Trump’s first-term tariffs increased per household annual costs by $831 between 2018 and 2019. This disproportionately hurts low- and middle-income families.
...
More behind paywall: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tariffs-...-paul-312d6537

[Brian4Liberty]

...A tariff only tax system replacing the income tax would absolutely be an improvement over the income tax...

Amen.

https://x.com/USAB4L/status/1849932919802077226

[TheTexan]

No one is advocating for isolationist policies here, and I'm not sure what your definition of "globalism" is....

Globalism is generally speaking defined by the continuous pressure to politically unify and integrate, eradicating over time political distinctions and demarcations, eventually leading to a culturally and politically homogenous world population governed by the same global set of rules.

If you're referring to global governance or some sort of global hegemony then yeah, globalism is clearly a bad thing. But global trade and commerce is a good thing.

Global trade and commerce can be a good thing. For example, if a nation has an unplanned shortage or surplus, global trade can cover the difference.

But it's absolutely foolish and naive for anyone to think global trade doesn't have negative consequences as well. I've detailed some of these consequences in other threads. One can make a reasonable debate as to whether or not the pros outweigh the cons or not, but anyone who just outright denies that those con's exist at all, is living in some kind of fantasy land.

[TheTexan]

For people who appreciate the free market, trade barriers are voluntarily entered into contractually all the time. E.g., Exclusivity Supply/Purchase/Distribution Agreements

In a truly free market, there's no reason to believe that nations couldn't benefit from doing the same thing, on a national scale.

[Matt Collins]

For people who appreciate the free market, trade barriers are voluntarily entered into contractually all the time. E.g., Exclusivity Supply/Purchase/Distribution Agreements

In a truly free market, there's no reason to believe that nations couldn't benefit from doing the same thing, on a national scale.

You seem not to understand that when the government does it that it is anti-freedom.

[Matt Collins]

But it's absolutely foolish and naive for anyone to think global trade doesn't have negative consequences as well.

Such as what?

[TheTexan]

You seem not to understand that when the government does it that it is anti-freedom.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "government".

If by "government", you mean an organization built for the benefit of its members, and does not use force to compel membership, then no, it is not anti-freedom.

If by "government", you mean an organization that uses force to compel membership, then yes, everything it does (including its very existence), is indeed anti-freedom.

But, in either case, it's the force used to compel membership, and not the actions of the organization, that determine whether it is "anti-freedom" or not.

There is nothing inherently "anti-freedom" about tariffs. There is something inherently anti-freedom about compelling membership.

Learn the difference

[TheTexan]

Such as what?

Trade dependencies & cultural/economic homogenization

Plus the wars caused by those trade dependencies

Plus the globalism that these things lead to

Plus the wars caused by the globalism itself

[sparebulb]

Rand has jumped the shark when he wistfully recounts the economic miracles of Ronald Reagan.

There are so many republitarted dupes in this country that all one has to say to win them over is repeat the new red religion of Ronald Reagan.

[Sonny Tufts]

If by "government", you mean an organization that uses force to compel membership, then yes, everything it does (including its very existence), is indeed anti-freedom.

How is it compulsory membership if you can renounce your membership and are free to go elsewhere?

[TheTexan]

How is it compulsory membership if you can renounce your membership and are free to go elsewhere?

We've already had a similar discussion and I came to the conclusion that you genuinely hate secession and are pretty much an evil person in heart & policy, and thus as I've said before, I don't have any need or reason to engage in debate with you.

If you're still around in a couple years, feel free to quote this post, and ask for a re-do, but until then, kindly $#@! off

[Madison320]

What a loser. Rand will never be president. He loves child slave labor producing cheap low quality products. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. They don't cause inflation. We had record low inflation rates during Trump's term.

Sarcasm? Hopefully?

[Matt Collins]

But, in either case, it's the force used to compel membership, and not the actions of the organization, that determine whether it is "anti-freedom" or not.

There is nothing inherently "anti-freedom" about tariffs. There is something inherently anti-freedom about compelling membership.

Wow, you're pretty stupid. Swap out the word "tariff" and replace it with "tax" and maybe if your pea-brain can comprehend it you'll figure it out.

[Madison320]

For people who appreciate the free market, trade barriers are voluntarily entered into contractually all the time. E.g., Exclusivity Supply/Purchase/Distribution Agreements

In a truly free market, there's no reason to believe that nations couldn't benefit from doing the same thing, on a national scale.

It would be perfectly fine if a large percentage of the population decided voluntarily to boycott buying or selling stuff from another country.

But I've never seen a tariff that was voluntary. It's theft like any other tax.

[CCTelander]

Looks like we’ve got another globalist determined to lead America into a one world government nightmare.

FFS, who elects these traitors anyway?