Boom. You can't out tariff us. Period. This Trump knows.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm glad that you can see the similarities between what you want and the Chinese system. In other words, you're arguing for Chinese-style central economic control.

You're the one saying it's okay to benefit from the Chinese system. But you hate it. So which is it?

The era of illusion that we can just flip burgers for each other and call it a strong economy is coming to an end. We're gonna start producing again. Working again. Gaining wealth again. If you want to sit at home and complain that there's no more cheap steel coming from a country that has suicide nets around their buildings, go right ahead. But there's a lot of opportunity right now for people who will take advantage of it.

[Ender]

Smoot Hawley was passed when we had a trade surplus, it was an aggressive tariff when nobody was waging trade war against us and it wasn't responsible for the depression anyway, it was the scapegoat chosen by the banksters to distract from the Fed.

From Ron Paul:
Ron Paul:

The Case for Free Trade
By Ron Paul
Mises.org
December 1, 2016

In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of “protecting” U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made worldwide and longer-lasting.

Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.

Not only does protectionism make everyone poorer—except certain special interests—but it also increases international tensions, and can lead to war.

“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it,” wrote Adam Smith in 1776, “better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country will not therefore be diminished… but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed to the greater advantage.”

[Ender]

You're the one saying it's okay to benefit from the Chinese system. But you hate it. So which is it?

The era of illusion that we can just flip burgers for each other and call it a strong economy is coming to an end. We're gonna start producing again. Working again. Gaining wealth again. If you want to sit at home and complain that there's no more cheap steel coming from a country that has suicide nets around their buildings, go right ahead. But there's a lot of opportunity right now for people who will take advantage of it.

Tariffs Are Not the Answer
By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

March 13, 2018

donate FacebookTwitter

President Trump’s planned 25 percent tariff on steel imports and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports may provide a temporary boost for those industries, but the tariffs will do tremendous long-term damage to the American and global economies. Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.

Some justify these economic inefficiencies as being worth it to save American jobs. This ignores how tariffs increase costs of production for industries reliant on imported materials to produce their products. These increased costs lead to job losses in those industries. For example, President Trump’s proposed steel tariff could cost nearly 40,000 jobs in the steel-dependent auto manufacturing industry. Tariffs also cause job losses in industries reliant on exports. This is especially true if — as is likely to be the case — other countries respond to President Trump’s actions by increasing tariffs on US products.

Many of President Trump’s critics do not themselves support true free trade, which is the voluntary exchange of goods and services across borders. Instead, they support the managed (by government) trade of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO). NAFTA and the WTO promote world government and crony capitalism, not free markets. Any libertarian or free-market conservative who thinks the WTO promotes economic liberty should remember that the WTO once ordered Congress to raise taxes!

Foreign manufacturers may make convenient scapegoats for the problems facing US industry. However, the truth is that most of the problems plaguing American businesses stem from the US government. American businesses are burdened by thousands of federal regulations controlling every aspect of their operations. The tax system also burdens businesses. Until last year’s tax reform bill, the US had the highest corporate tax rates in the developed word. The tax reform bill lowered corporate taxes, but the US corporate tax rate is still higher than that of many other developed countries.

The United States not only spends more on “defense” than the combined budgets of the next eight biggest spending countries, but also spends billions subsidizing the defense of developed counties like Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Bringing US troops home from these countries is an excellent place to start reducing spending on militarism.

The biggest cause of our economic problems is the Federal Reserve. America’s experiment with fiat currency has enabled a system based on private and public debt. This makes trade imbalances inevitable as the US government needs foreign investors to purchase its debt. Foreign investors get the money to purchase the US government’s debt by selling products to American consumers. A trade war could cause foreign investors to stop buying US debt instruments and could end the dollar’s world reserves currency status. This would cause a major economic crisis — but at least it would stop our shores from being flooded with “cheap foreign goods.”

President Trump’s claim that trade wars can be easily won is as credible as the neoconservative claim that the Iraq War would be a cakewalk. A trade war would likely push the global economy into a recession or worse. Instead of imposing costs on American businesses and consumers and putting those whose livelihoods depend on imports out of s job, President Trump should address the real causes of our economic problems: the welfare-warfare state, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve.

[Zippyjuan]

And the closest offer ever proposed to what beltway libertarians claim to want...

When Trump entered office, the Europeans had an offer on the table as part of the TPP talks to get rid of over 90% of all tariffs and taxes between the US and Europe. He said it was the "worst deal" (they are all the "worst deals"). He ended those negotiations and walked away from their offer. Eleven Europeans signed the deal without the US.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...fs-855737.html

Japan and EU to sign trade deal eliminating nearly all tariffs

The European Union and Japan are signing a widespread trade deal that will eliminate nearly all tariffs, seemingly defying worries over trade tensions triggered by US president Donald Trump’s policies.

The deal will be signed in Tokyo, although this is largely a ceremonial exercise as the agreement was struck late last year.

It was delayed from earlier this month because Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe cancelled going to Brussels over a disaster in south-western Japan caused by extremely heavy rainfall, with more than 200 people dying in floods and landslides.

European Council president Donald Tusk and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker will also attend a gala dinner at the prime minister’s official residence.

Both sides are heralding the deal, which covers a third of the global economy and more than 600 million people.

Prices of European wine and pork will fall for Japanese consumers, while Japanese machinery parts, tea and fish will become cheaper for Europe.

The deal eliminates about 99% of the tariffs on Japanese goods to the EU, but remaining at around 94% for European imports into Japan for now and rising to 99% over the years.

The difference is due to exceptions such as rice, a product which is culturally and politically sensitive and has been protected for decades in Japan.

The major step toward liberalising trade has been discussed in talks since 2013, but the timing of the signing is striking as China and the US are embroiled in trade conflicts.

The US is proposing 10% tariffs on a $200bn list of Chinese goods.

That follows an earlier move by Washington to impose 25% tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods. Beijing has responded by imposing identical penalties on a similar amount of American imports.

[CCTelander]

Tariffs Are Not the Answer
By Ron Paul

Ron who?

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah, we’ll take your word on that.

Might read this. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-nafta-vs-usmca/

[Ender]

Ron who?

Some weird guy that thinks he knows something about freedom, finances & lawful pursuits.

[CCTelander]

Some weird guy that thinks he knows something about freedom, finances & lawful pursuits.

Sounds like some silly, senile old geezer to me. Unlike the Cheeto Charlatan in Chief.

[EBounding]

GM to Idle Factories, Cut Thousands of North American Jobs

Don't worry though. The Best Trade War Ever is just about won--I can feel it!

[osan]

China does not make anything I want .

Oh I dunno... some of the women are OK.

[Swordsmyth]

Ooh, good answer; is this the famed "I know you are but what am I" defense?

One of us argues for government control of the economy, information, and "culture." The other does not. "Nuh uh" doesn't change that.

The Chinese are already controlling the economy, I merely argue that our elected representatives should cancel out their efforts and/or negotiate for them to stop, I do not advocate for government control of information or culture.

[Swordsmyth]

From Ron Paul:
Ron Paul:

Tariffs Are Not the Answer
By Ron Paul

Ron is wrong on this issue because he ignores the differences between theory under ideal conditions and practicality under real world conditions.

[Swordsmyth]

When Trump entered office, the Europeans had an offer on the table as part of the TPP talks to get rid of over 90% of all tariffs and taxes between the US and Europe. He said it was the "worst deal" (they are all the "worst deals"). He ended those negotiations and walked away from their offer. Eleven Europeans signed the deal without the US.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...fs-855737.html

I keep telling you there were other elements to that deal that were bad but you don't listen.

[Swordsmyth]

GM to Idle Factories, Cut Thousands of North American Jobs

Don't worry though. The Best Trade War Ever is just about won--I can feel it!

That has to do with other things and would have happened anyway.

[Zippyjuan]

I keep telling you there were other elements to that deal that were bad but you don't listen.

You never listed them or said how they were changed. You just made the generic charge.

[Ender]

Ron is wrong on this issue because he ignores the differences between theory under ideal conditions and practicality under real world conditions.

No- YOU are wrong & apparently do not understand finances while ignoring real history.

Hoover’s Tax on Imports

Concerned about falling farm prices following the crash, Hoover called on government to make Americans pay more for food. But the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of June 17, 1930, did more than raise prices of farm products. It raised taxes on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. Among the tariff increases were over 800 items used in making cars. In combination with retaliatory tariffs from European countries, Smoot-Hawley pulled American car sales down from 5.3 million in 1929 to 1.8 million in 1932 (p. 43).

Hoover hurt the very group he was trying to protect. Because tariff hikes mean fewer foreign goods are sold in this country, foreigners have fewer dollars with which to buy American goods. Not surprisingly, American exports dropped from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.5 billion by 1932. Since the US agricultural industry was a net exporter, American farmers were hurt more than many other producers.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/...cord-straight/

But immediately after Norquist’s talk came Duncan Hunter, a San Diego congressman and GOP presidential candidate. While Norquist championed a coalition of people who want government to leave them alone, Hunter championed a government that was about bossing everybody around. "It is in the interests of the United States to expand freedom," he said. "If you don’t change the world, the world will change you." And, boy, did Hunter offer plans to change the world. He vowed to take on China and Iran, to continue what he viewed as a successful war in Iraq, to crack down on illegal immigration and to expand government spending on the military. He talked about "duty, honor, country" but not about liberty. The crowd — at least the conservative faction — roared its approval.

"That was the scariest s— I’ve heard in a long time," I whispered to libertarian writer Doug Bandow, who apparently agreed. Writing in his blog, Bandow contrasted Hunter with Norquist: "Very different was … Hunter, who wants to slap tariffs on Chinese imports, expand the military, close the border and go to war to do good around the world. His trade critique sounds like something out of communist central planning … . With his import limits he would follow the example of the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff, which wrecked international markets and helped bring on the Great Depression. Worse, though, he wants to use the U.S. military to ‘expand freedom around the world,’ when Washington’s principal responsibility is to defend America’s national security. Undertaking glorious international crusades with other people’s lives is Wilsonian liberalism, not responsible conservatism."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/10/...-ron-paulians/

So Donald’s mooted 25% tariff should at least have had a familiar ring. As it happened, the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was in exactly the same zip code, averaging 22.7% on tariffed goods.

To be sure, the economists are still debating the macroeconomic impact of Smoot-Hawley 88 years later; and some unreconstructed Keynesians, like Professor Barry Eichengreen, who is allegedly a foremost authority on global finance and the gold standard (he’s dead set against it), hold that it actually functioned as a Keynesian-type stimulus!

That’s right. He and others of his ilk say it raised GDP by about 2.0%—-even after accounting for the adverse impact of the 40% collapse in US exports which occurred between Q2 1930 and Q3 1932.

Then again, the common folk of the day on both main street and wall street were not confused by such puzzle palace artifacts as today’s DSGE (dynamic stochastic general equilibrium) models of the economy. Common sense and direct observations told them it was a catastrophe.

That’s why main street threw both Reps Smoot and Hawley out of office in the next election, and also why the stock market declined by another 70% from the already depressed post-1929 crash level that prevailed in the spring of 1930.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/...ot-war-part-4/

[Swordsmyth]

No- YOU are wrong & apparently do not understand finances while ignoring real history.

Smoot-Hawley started a trade war when we were already ahead of the game, Trump is fighting back after we have been looted and pillaged.

[Ender]

Smoot-Hawley started a trade war when we were already ahead of the game, Trump is fighting back after we have been looted and pillaged.

WRONG.

Trump’s Fake Fix for a Bad Policy
By Walter E. Block

The negative consequences of a trade war will soon be felt, if they aren’t already. Even if the United States avoids trade conflict with Europe, tariffs on steel and aluminum from China, Mexico and Canada will boost domestic prices, hurting consumers. And the administration is likely to find itself subsidizing voters who purchase these items or who are hurt when other countries slap tariffs on American goods in retaliation — mainly farmers, manufacturers and builders.

That is why Mr. Trump went to Iowa on Thursday: The state’s farm industry could be severely hurt by taxes or tariffs on American farm exports imposed by China and other countries in retaliation for Mr. Trump’s tariffs. So the president came heralding a plan to provide as much as $12 billion in emergency relief to farmers hurt by his trade skirmishes. That is a $12 billion bailout using taxpayer funds for a problem the president himself created. LUDWIG VON MISES WARNED ABOUT PRECISELY THIS PROBLEM: INTERVENING, AGAIN, TO FIX A PROBLEM THE PREVIOUS INTERVENTION CAUSED. THIS SORT OF THING DOES NOT END WELL.

There are other longer-term consequences of a trade war. After the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, announced that tariffs would be imposed on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico, Canada and the European Union in May, our European allies embraced greater trade relations with, of all places, Russia. Canada is sidling up to China. This will only hurt American exporters.

Maybe we should be happy that the president hasn’t yet kicked Hawaii out of the union and imposed a tariff on pineapples to strengthen the weak pineapple industry in other states. Absurd, yes, but hardly less bizarre than thinking tariffs on foreign goods will make the American economy great again.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/...lock/687066-2/

[phill4paul]

No- YOU are wrong & apparently do not understand finances while ignoring real history.

Smoot-Hawley pulled American car sales down from 5.3 million in 1929 to 1.8 million in 1932

No. The $#@!ing crash did that. The Great Depression. That usually drives down car sales. Lol.

[Swordsmyth]

WRONG.

Previous farm welfare and China caused the problem.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.history.com/news/trade-w...p-smoot-hawley

The Smoot Hawley Act helped make things even worse.

The Great Depression Lesson About ‘Trade Wars’

In 1930, raising tariffs across the board hurt the U.S. economy.

President Donald Trump has tweeted that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” But many economists have disagreed that raising tariffs sharply can improve the economy. In particular, experts have pointed to the failure of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, passed in June 1930, to protect U.S. industries with tariff increases.

Although this came several months after the stock market crash of 1929, the U.S. hadn’t yet entered “the full onset of the Great Depression,” says Claude Barfield, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The thinking among Congress and President Herbert Hoover was that by raising taxes on thousands of imports no matter what country they came from, the act would protect American farmers and secure the nation’s economy. But experts disagreed.

“Economists around the country argued to the Republican Congress that this would only hurt the world economy, and the United States economy,” Barfield says. (Before the political parties realigned in the mid-20th century, the Democrats were the “free trade” party.)

And they were right. Although it did not cause the onset of the Great Depression, it did help extend it. After President Hoover signed the bill into law, stocks dropped to 140.

Other countries responded to the United States’ tariffs by putting up their restrictions on international trade, which just made it harder for the United States to pull itself out of its depression. Imports became largely unaffordable and people who had lost their jobs could only afford to buy domestic products. Global trade tanked 65 percent.

In effect, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act “prolonged [the depression] and possibly deepened it around the world, not just in the United States but for other countries,” he says.

[Danke]

Ron is wrong on this issue because he ignores the differences between theory under ideal conditions and practicality under real world conditions.

I bet if you asked him, Ron would take tariff taxes over Income taxes to fund government.

[Swordsmyth]

I bet if you asked him, Ron would take tariff taxes over Income taxes to fund government.

Yup, Ron seems to forget about that due to libertarian "free trade" brainwashing, someone should remind him.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.history.com/news/trade-w...p-smoot-hawley

The Smoot Hawley Act helped make things even worse.

Yes, STARTING a trade war when you are a net exporter is an incredibly stupid idea.






But it has nothing to do with fighting back in a trade war when you have a huge trade deficit.

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, STARTING a trade war when you are a net exporter is an incredibly stupid idea.






But it has nothing to do with fighting back in a trade war when you have a huge trade deficit.

Noting that the trade deficit has been growing since the start of the trade war. More winning. Trade war good. Plus we can pay off all of our debt with the tariff revenues. Wait- that is growing too.

[Danke]

Yup, Ron seems to forget about that due to libertarian "free trade" brainwashing, someone should remind him.

He is against punitive tariffs. A flat across the board, that was used before the Income tax to fund the government, I bet he would agree with.

[Zippyjuan]

He is against punitive tariffs. A flat across the board, that was used before the Income tax to fund the government, I bet he would agree with.

All tariffs punish somebody. They are all "punitive". If you want to balance the budget (at current spending levels) with a flat tariff on imports, that would be over 200% on everything imported. A tax on everything would hurt everybody.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/ron-...consumers.html

Ron Paul to Trump: Tariffs won’t help US economy because they’re really just hidden taxes on consumers

If threatened U.S. trade tariffs against China go into effect, they’ll hurt working Americans, Ron Paul told CNBC on Monday.

President Donald Trump needs to stop “blaming a free market and capitalism” for the U.S. trade imbalances with China and other nations, said Paul, a former 12-term GOP congressman from Texas and three-time presidential candidate.

“If we can’t compete then we have to say, ‘Why can’t we compete?’” he said.

But trying to fix decades of “mismanaged” trade with tariffs is the wrong approach, Paul argued on “Squawk on the Street.”

“A tariff can’t fix this. A tariff is a tax and the tax is on the people who live in the country who raises it,” he said. “People that might be enjoying $25 tennis shoes will have to pay $100. That doesn’t help anybody.”

More at link.

[Danke]

All tariffs punish somebody. They are all "punitive". If you want to balance the budget (at current spending levels) with a flat tariff on imports, that would be over 200% on everything imported.

Yes, all taxes can be viewed that way.

Slashing the budget and doing away with Income taxes would not need a 200% tariff.'

• The total value of imports (CIF) is US$ 2,248,209 million.

[Swordsmyth]

Noting that the trade deficit has been growing since the start of the trade war. More winning. Trade war good. Plus we can pay off all of our debt with the tariff revenues. Wait- that is growing too.

The effects of front running the tariffs and a rising dollar, it won't last.

[Swordsmyth]

All tariffs punish somebody. They are all "punitive". If you want to balance the budget (at current spending levels) with a flat tariff on imports, that would be over 200% on everything imported. A tax on everything would hurt everybody.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/ron-...consumers.html



More at link.

So we should penalize production instead of consumption?
Or do you want no taxes and all spending done with debt/printing?