Jump to content

Who really believes tariffs are good business


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Good link Tom.  Credible. 

honest question: how did the libertarian members of the legislature react to Trump's tariffs?

Justin Amash called them corporate welfare, among other cheerleading comments. Right as usual.

To the extend he can be called libertarian,

Rand Paul: A Tariff Is Simply A Tax

He won't join the LP or quit the GOP, but

Massie noted that tariffs are breeding cronyism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wrong! Guess who's price went up? BOTH! I had a $10k budget.  the import was $7500, the domestic were $10k, so, I was going to buy domestic. The DOMESTIC is going up, estimate is 1

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are: their own protectionism their rampant IP theft As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of

Agreed - the corporations probably didn't expect to get ripped off as they did, and no argument the Chinese have engaged in industrial espionage on a huge scale. Tariffing their products incorpor

Posted Images

18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm sorry. I know what they quietly said about it in articles  What did they do about it?

I thought they said it loudly in articles. As if that makes more sense.

I guess they did what our elk usually do when vastly outnumbered by authoritarian Duopoly types: got called names, mostly.

Rand Paul was right that Congress simply didn't want to rein in the power to tax any more than they want to rein in the power to make war. The bipartisan consensus seems to be that it's safer to leave those powers in one person. Not much those of us who disagree can do about it when vastly outnumbered.

Removing the person is one answer, something Justin Amash voted to do, causing me to ask people here if he's a Fauxbertarian Trumpublican. No answer, of course, much to my delight. Questions to which the answer is obvious, but which still won't be answered, are my very favorite kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

… Removing the person is one answer, something Justin Amash voted to do, causing me to ask people here if he's a Fauxbertarian Trumpublican. No answer, of course, much to my delight. Questions to which the answer is obvious, but which still won't be answered, are my very favorite kind.

Readers are all too aware but even so, endless boring repetition can't hurt. After all, one or maybe even two of the thousands of readers here might forget for a second or two what your favorite things are. We need PROSELYTIZATION, TOM! AND WE NEED IT RFN. 

[sarc]

endless boring repetition can't hurt. After all, one or maybe even two of the thousands of readers here might forget for a second or two what your favorite things are. We need PROSELYTIZATION, TOM! AND WE NEED IT RFN. 

[sarc]

endless boring repetition can't hurt. After all, one or maybe even two of the thousands of readers here might forget for a second or two what your favorite things are. We need PROSELYTIZATION, TOM! AND WE NEED IT RFN. 

[sarc]

endless boring repetition can't hurt. After all, one or maybe even two of the thousands of readers here might forget for a second or two what your favorite things are. We need PROSELYTIZATION, TOM! AND WE NEED IT RFN. 

[sarc]

endless boring repetition can't hurt. After all, one or maybe even two of the thousands of readers here might forget for a second or two what your favorite things are. We need PROSELYTIZATION, TOM! AND WE NEED IT RFN. 

[sarc]

Personaly, I rue the day when an SA reader doesn't know what the real Tom Ray, not even a speck of sweat on God's testicles, from Podunk Gorda, FL thinks about this or that. Yes, he could have a much broader audience on other social media platforms but no, his tent is pitched here. Yes, dear reader, he does have his own thread but it gets ignored so what the hey?

 

soapbox.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's trade war exacerbated shortage of medical equipment

Quote

 

Many of the key personal protective equipment items healthcare workers need are Chinese in origin. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, roughly half of the PPE items the U.S. imports come from China, and the percentages are much higher for some items: 70 percent of mouth-nose protective equipment and 57 percent of goggles and visors. Additionally, 45 percent of protective garments and 39 percent of gloves the U.S. imports come from China.

“China makes 120 million masks a day, while U.S. hospitals are asking volunteers to make them at home. We need Chinese PPE, ventilators and much more now.”

“China makes 120 million masks a day, while U.S. hospitals are asking volunteers to make them at home. We need Chinese PPE, ventilators and much more now,” said Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at the Brandeis International Business School.

The U.S. doesn’t have the supply chains and manufacturing capabilities it would need to make all of this equipment. Shifting a global production process is a complicated, costly process under the best of circumstances — which current conditions are not. The Association for Accessible Medicines, a pharmaceutical trade group, also argued that the rule would cripple Americans’ ability to get medications quickly and cheaply.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-s-trade-war-exacerbated-shortage-medical-equipment-n1170466

Link to post
Share on other sites

When that level of selfish, stupid, ignorant, oafish incompetence got elected POTUS it was a given that one way or another a lot of people were going to die.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

When that level of selfish, stupid, ignorant, oafish incompetence got elected POTUS it was a given that one way or another a lot of people were going to die.

And the oaf wouldn't know or care.

ozymandius.jpg?w=529

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

When that level of selfish, stupid, ignorant, oafish incompetence got elected POTUS it was a given that one way or another a lot of people were going to die.

And the oaf wouldn't know or care.

ozymandius.jpg?w=529

Our you sayeng Trumpe ist in PBS' schoolle of "kinge of kinges" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Our you sayeng Trumpe ist in PBS' schoolle of "kinge of kinges" ?

 
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
 
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Sonnetry Petrarchan! :wub:  Shelley, baby!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:
11 hours ago, Mid said:

who coulda thunk it?

Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleaders, as noted in post 864.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to suspend collection of import tariffs for three months to give U.S. companies financial relief amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to administration officials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 4:43 PM, Mid said:

As that great American philosopher Gomer Pyle would have said: “surprise, surprise, surprise.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, garuda3 said:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to suspend collection of import tariffs for three months to give U.S. companies financial relief amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to administration officials.

Wait, what?

"To give US companies relief"???

WTF I thought the Chinese were paying the tariffs!!!

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wait, what?

"To give US companies relief"???

WTF I thought the Chinese were paying the tariffs!!!

- DSK

Let's not try to bring reality into this discussion at this late stage...

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, garuda3 said:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to suspend collection of import tariffs for three months to give U.S. companies financial relief amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to administration officials.

It's almost like he thinks tax cuts are a good thing or something. Weird to finally agree with him on his stupid trade war, but he's right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, garuda3 said:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to suspend collection of import tariffs for three months to give U.S. companies financial relief amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to administration officials.

I doubt that I will be undoing all of the price increases I did last fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump threatens OPEC, Russia with tariffs

Quote

At a press briefing on Sunday, President Donald Trump said if Saudia Arabia and Russia couldn't cut a deal to end their oil price war he would impose "very substantial tariffs" on oil imports. 

https://www.insider.com/trump-threatens-saudi-arabia-russia-oil-tariffs-2020-4

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Jesus man, have some heart for the consumer! How many people filed for unemployment last week? How many will this week? 

I thought the US was self sufficient in oil because of shale.  The only reason you would import is if the import was at a less cost than the domestic version.  This tariff would have to be a price leveling mechanism and may be better served just to not allow oil imports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Laker said:

I thought the US was self sufficient in oil because of shale.  The only reason you would import is if the import was at a less cost than the domestic version.  This tariff would have to be a price leveling mechanism and may be better served just to not allow oil imports.

Not how the oil market works. Refiners pay market price (barring futures) for feedstock. If it's $23, that's what they pay. If it's $23 + $10bbl tariff, that's what they pay. 

Either way, that higher feedstock cost will hit you at the pump.

Problem is, those fracking boys costs to product are higher than the current world price. They are getting hammered. Debt you know. Looks good when it's good, looks real bad when it's bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, when the economy had a risk of overheating because of the tax cuts in a tight market,  I felt Trump was accidentally doing something to sustain the boom because tariffs are essentially a reduction in fiscal spend. But when you are looking at a situation where the velocity of money had dropped significantly, then another round of tariffs is pointing a gun at your own head.  That said, we don't care much about tariffs on imported oil. We are our own petro-state. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's Tariffs Are Still Slowing America's Coronavirus Response
 

Quote

 

The Trump administration's tariffs will make it more expensive and difficult for General Motors to import the parts to build 30,000 critically needed ventilators for American hospitals.

...

"To meet the needs of the U.S. government, U.S. medical professionals, and U.S. patients in this time of crisis, GM is drawing upon its established global network of suppliers and its supply chain expertise to secure these critical components," Craig B. Glidden, general counsel for General Motors, wrote to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on March 31, shortly after the company and the administration had begun discussing plans to manufacture more ventilators.

Building a ventilator is complicated. More than 700 components are needed to assemble one, Glidden wrote, and GM would have to draw upon "established suppliers" in China to provide some of those parts.

The administration's China tariffs, Glidden wrote, could "impede the ability of GM and other U.S. manufacturers to source parts for critical care ventilators quickly, reliably, and at as reasonable a cost as possible."

The rationale for the tariffs has been to encourage manufacturers to move out of China and bring jobs back to the United States. "If we made it here, we wouldn't be faced with this," Peter Navarro, Trump's top trade advisor and a longtime China hawk, told 60 Minutes last night when asked about ventilator shortages.

But the tariffs haven't been a boon for American manufacturing. And even if they were capable of redirecting global trade on a larger scale, self-sufficiency wouldn't necessarily be desirable. Diverse supply chains based in a variety of places around the world are more stable and resilient.

...

When it comes to making ventilators, General Motors' request identifies a number of industrial components that the company should be exempted from tariffs, including certain types of gaskets, filters, and compressor silencers.

It should be obvious that the response to a public health emergency will require goods that aren't, strictly speaking, medical equipment. But then, it should be obvious that tariffs are a poor way to redirect global trade, since they mostly punish American importers, businesses, and consumers.

 

On both counts, the administration's trade policy has been a disaster. President Donald Trump's tariffs probably reduced the ability of hospitals and other medical providers to stock up on crucial gear before the coronavirus pandemic. When those trade barriers were imposed in 2018, medical professionals warned the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that the levies were counterproductive and would harm America's preparedness for a public health crisis.

The administration waited until mid-March to lift those tariffs. As GM's (and other companies') exemption requests demonstrate, cutting tariffs for medical gear doesn't go nearly far enough to help American companies respond effectively to the pandemic.

...

 

Offered with apologies for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2020 at 8:27 AM, Raz'r said:

Not how the oil market works. Refiners pay market price (barring futures) for feedstock. If it's $23, that's what they pay. If it's $23 + $10bbl tariff, that's what they pay. 

Either way, that higher feedstock cost will hit you at the pump.

Problem is, those fracking boys costs to product are higher than the current world price. They are getting hammered. Debt you know. Looks good when it's good, looks real bad when it's bad.

Yes. This is key, the Saudis are untouchable on costs, they can sustain price crashes and for longer periods than anyone. 

Everyone else has a clock ticking louder and louder the longer it goes on, and fracking are the most exposed. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

Yes. This is key, the Saudis are untouchable on costs, they can sustain price crashes and for longer periods than anyone. 

Everyone else has a clock ticking louder and louder the longer it goes on, and fracking are the most exposed. 

 

The Alberta Oil Sands is hurting bad. They can't just shut down production and wait, they have to keep the line hot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Trump threatens China with another round of tariffs (that will be paid for by US companies and consumers) over the COVID virus.  Wall Street is down over 400 points.  More “winning” Trump style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerseyguy said:

Trump threatens China with another round of tariffs (that will be paid for by US companies and consumers) over the COVID virus.  Wall Street is down over 400 points.  More “winning” Trump style.

What a fucktard. Really Elk? This is your guy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

What a fucktard. Really Elk? This is your guy?

Dow down 588 points. Trump sure is a financial jenius. I bet Americans are so glad he's running the country like he ran his businesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Voyageur said:

Trump, meanwhile, told reporters Thursday that he’s seen evidence linking the coronavirus to the Wuhan lab, but failed to elaborate, saying: “I can’t tell you that. I am not allowed to tell you that.”

Last time Trump used that script he a Rudy hot on the case. Whatever happened to all the iron-clad conclusive evidence that was about to be released about Biden/Burisma?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

One regrettable answer to the topic question is: Congress
 

Quote

 

A bipartisan effort to limit the president's authority to impose tariffs unilaterally appears to have been scrubbed before it ever reached the launch pad.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) told Inside Tradean industry publication, that legislation curtailing President Donald Trump's unprecedented and aggressive use of tariffs under the guise of "national security" has stalled in the Senate Finance Committee, which Grassley chairs. Grassley said lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement to pass a bill, in part, because Republican members of the committee were unwilling to stand up to the president.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress final authority over trade, but the legislature has delegated much of that authority to the executive branch since the end of World War II. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, for example, Congress gave the White House the ability to impose tariffs unilaterally in order to protect domestic industries deemed essential for national security. It's a provision that was supposed to ensure America had adequate supplies of weaponry in the event of a war, but the Trump administration has stretched the "national security" claim to an absurd degree—going as far as suggesting that imported cars might somehow threaten America's ability to defend itself.

...

Grassley has repeatedly said he wanted to pass something curtailing presidential tariff powers—and Republicans have quietly worried that Trump's aggressive use of Section 232 could allow a future Democratic administration to declare, for example, global warming a national security risk and use Section 232 to slap tariffs on carbon-emitting goods and industries.

That would be no more ridiculous than how Trump has used the law. Republicans' failure to stand up to Trump's hamfisted attempts to redirect global trade may only pave the way for future abuses—and it demonstrates the extent to which Congress has abdicated its role as a co-equal branch of government.

 

Offered with the usual apology for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Trump Wants New Tariffs on Canadian Aluminum
 

Quote

 

Just days before a new trade deal among the United States, Canada, and Mexico is set to take effect, the administration is reportedly considering reimposing tariffs on Canadian aluminum that it had dropped in order to negotiate the deal.

Whether or not the 10 percent tariffs become reality again, the incident seems to demonstrate—once more—that foreign nations have little to gain by negotiating trade deals with America while Donald Trump remains in office. As long as America's trade policy is being directed by tempestuous protectionists, it will be difficult for any foreign leader to trust that the U.S. is negotiating in good faith.

Restarting an unnecessary and counterproductive trade skirmish with a close ally and key trading partner would also demonstrate that the president has learned nothing from more than two years of failed tariff policies.

...

 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Trump's Trade War Made the Panicdemic Worse, and Nationalism Will Slow the Recovery
 

Quote

 

"One of the things this crisis has taught us," Peter Navarro, a top administration economic adviser, explained from behind the podium in the White House's briefing room, "is that we are dangerously overdependent on a global supply chain."

It was April 2, and, after weeks of largely ignoring COVID-19 as it spread around the world and into the United States, the Trump administration was finally taking the panicdemic seriously. That is to say, it was responding in much the same way as it has throughout President Donald Trump's tenure: by finding new ways to use old laws to expand federal power—particularly power over the free exchange of goods across international borders.

As the novel coronavirus swept the globe and jammed up international supply lines, Navarro was appointed policy coordinator for the White House's use of the Defense Production Act—a relic of the Korean War era originally intended to allow the federal government to requisition goods to supply the military in a time of crisis. Trump and Navarro have used the law to redirect portions of the economy in an effort to address civilian needs, scrambling markets in the process.

Along the way, they targeted foreign trade too. For Trump, Navarro, and the other neo-nationalists increasingly setting policy for the post-2016 Republican Party, America's modern problems mostly stem from goods and people coming across the country's borders. If a problem can't be blamed on immigration, it probably will get blamed on trade. Sometimes both. And the neo-nationalists weren't about to let the coronavirus crisis go to waste.

"If we learn anything from this crisis," Navarro said in April, "it should be: Never again should we have to depend on the rest of the world for essential medicines and countermeasures."

...

 

What follows is a detailed look at some of the reasons, but for those who like it short and sweet, this sums it up.
 

Quote

 

"We shouldn't have supply chains. We should have them all in the United States," Trump said in that same May 14 interview, spelling it out for all to hear. This has never been solely about strategically countering a competitor's rise or trying to shift supply chains away from a potentially hostile communist country. It's about autarky, or at least about detaching America from the global trading systems that have helped lift much of the world out of poverty.

That's not a recipe for prosperity at home. It makes no more sense than suggesting that Ohio would prosper if it decided tomorrow to stop trading with the other 49 states.

 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Trump starts up the tariff wars again. What an idiot.

Quote

The United States slapped import tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum in 2018, before removing them last year as part of a broad free trade deal now in force.

Canada retaliated that time with $16.6 billion in tariffs on U.S. products, including ketchup, ballpoint pens, licorice, orange juice, whisky and toilet paper. At the time, Canada focused on products that would cause pain in electoral districts held by key Republicans, something that could be done again given the U.S. election is only three months away.

Trudeau and Freeland didn't specify what U.S. goods will be subject to countermeasures, nor whether the government will follow a similar strategy of targeting goods produced in Republican districts.

The new U.S. tariff will be in effect as of Aug. 16.

snip

American business groups largely oppose Trump's plan, since it will raise costs of the metal for U.S. manufacturers, who will have little option but to pay the tariff and import the metal anyway because the U.S. does not produce enough of the metal to satisfy domestic demand.

Canada supplied about three-quarters of all the aluminum imported into the U.S. between January and May of 2020, said the executive order implementing the tariff on "non-alloyed unwrought aluminum."

"The administration's move to reimpose tariffs on aluminum from Canada is a step in the wrong direction," said Myron Brilliant, head of international affairs for business lobby group U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"These tariffs will raise costs for American manufacturers, are opposed by most U.S. aluminum producers and will draw retaliation against U.S. exports."

The president of the industry association that represents U.S. aluminum producers said he is disappointed that Trump did not listen to domestic producers, who have been lobbying against imposing the Section 232 tariffs.

"After years of complex negotiations and hard work by government, industry and other leaders across North America to make the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement a reality, this ill-advised action on a key trading partner undermines the deal's benefits at a time when U.S. businesses and consumers can least afford it," said Tom Dobbins, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association.

Dobbins said reports of a surge of aluminum imports from Canada are grossly exaggerated. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-aluminum-tariff-1.5677036

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada to impose $3.6B in tariffs in response to Trump's move against Canadian aluminum

Quote

 

The government intends to impose $3.6 billion in punitive countermeasures after a 30-day consultation with business leaders and other Canadians about potential targets from a preliminary list.

"Canada will respond swiftly and strongly," Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said Friday.

Canada's list of potential targets threatens to hit politically sensitive areas — namely, states critical to U.S. President Donald Trump's re-election.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-aluminum-imports-tariffs-trump-1.5677757

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mid said:

Canada to impose $3.6B in tariffs in response to Trump's move against Canadian aluminum

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-aluminum-imports-tariffs-trump-1.5677757

More attempts to win the foot-shooting contest. Sigh.

I guess this thread needs some counterpoint, so here's some Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading on the topic:

Trump's New Tariffs on Canadian Aluminum Are Justifiable

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
21 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Hey Tom quick question: Who are Reason's founders supporting for the 2020 vote?

Lanny Friedlander died in 2011. Tibor Machan died in 2016. Not sure about Manny Klausner. As for Robert Poole, this piece suggests he supports looking outside the Duopoly.

Quick question: why do you ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, back to the OP . . 

In fact, no nation has become industrialized or modernized economically without sheltering its industries behind tariff walls. 

Every, Single. One. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 6:05 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The trade war and the stupid wall are Trump's signature issues.

Biden didn't bring up the tariffs at all during his convention speech, so I guess only Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleaders remain in opposition to the foot-shooting contest.

Done right, to offset other countries attempts at industrial battle, they are a necessary evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riccardo's law of comparative advantage speaks of any advantage.  Unfortunately that operates in a free market.  For a situation such as Silicon Valley, the comparative advantage must be enough to break free of the frictions of the the real market. Also think of the tariffs on Russian caviar.  A monopoly which has a true comparative advantage.  Still under tariff for political reasons, but economically indefensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Laker said:

Riccardo's law of comparative advantage speaks of any advantage.  Unfortunately that operates in a free market.  For a situation such as Silicon Valley, the comparative advantage must be enough to break free of the frictions of the the real market. Also think of the tariffs on Russian caviar.  A monopoly which has a true comparative advantage.  Still under tariff for political reasons, but economically indefensible.

But as consumers, we can choose to accept some advantages, and not others. Example: in the US we say we care about clean air/water, labor standards.

We should stand up for this choice and not allow our goods to be made without the same standards. Yeah, there's a cost advantage in China as you can dump pcbs in the water and push NO2 into the air. Well, drop a tariff on those countries approx equal to the cost of adhering to standards in the US.

It won't negate the entire cost advantage, but that's not the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:
3 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Can you name a few examples of tariffs that are/were done right?

to you? Why should I bother?

I wasn't suggesting a private message to me, just wondering if you wanted to share an example of a good tariff with the forum. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

7 hours ago, cmilliken said:
8 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Was he into wondering what dead people are thinking too?

Ironically, yes!  At least sometimes.  

Oh, well in that case who is Socrates supporting for the 2020 vote? Asking for a cueball-headed friend, not requesting a private message.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

But as consumers, we can choose to accept some advantages, and not others. Example: in the US we say we care about clean air/water, labor standards.

We should stand up for this choice and not allow our goods to be made without the same standards. Yeah, there's a cost advantage in China as you can dump pcbs in the water and push NO2 into the air. Well, drop a tariff on those countries approx equal to the cost of adhering to standards in the US.

It won't negate the entire cost advantage, but that's not the point.

I think that goods which are produced with unsafe labor, with unacceptable levels of pollution, or some other factor that would be illegal in the USA, that good should simply be barred from import.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think that goods which are produced with unsafe labor, with unacceptable levels of pollution, or some other factor that would be illegal in the USA, that good should simply be barred from import.

- DSK

We're already doing that in practical terms. Very little sugar comes in from abroad because of the protective tariff. Any farming is unsafe and I doubt powerhouses India and Brazil meet our standards for labor safety or pollution.

It's working out just super, thanks. More in the WOTUS thread. We just love our sugar farmers in Florida, especially if "we" means "the political class who keep those tariffs in place."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

We're already doing that in practical terms. Very little sugar comes in from abroad because of the protective tariff. Any farming is unsafe and I doubt powerhouses India and Brazil meet our standards for labor safety or pollution.

It's working out just super, thanks. More in the WOTUS thread. We just love our sugar farmers in Florida, especially if "we" means "the political class who keep those tariffs in place."

You can't read too good, can you? Please point to the spot in my post where I mentioned "tariffs"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think that goods which are produced with unsafe labor, with unacceptable levels of pollution, or some other factor that would be illegal in the USA, that good should simply be barred from import.

- DSK

That’s fine too, a tariff of infinity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

We should stand up for this choice and not allow our goods to be made without the same standards. Yeah, there's a cost advantage in China as you can dump pcbs in the water and push NO2 into the air. Well, drop a tariff on those countries approx equal to the cost of adhering to standards in the US.

You nailed it - except for the part that US workers should not have to compete with 

those poor souls in other countries 

who work at the point of a gun 

I've seen it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
32 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

We're already doing that in practical terms. Very little sugar comes in from abroad because of the protective tariff. Any farming is unsafe and I doubt powerhouses India and Brazil meet our standards for labor safety or pollution.

It's working out just super, thanks. More in the WOTUS thread. We just love our sugar farmers in Florida, especially if "we" means "the political class who keep those tariffs in place."

You can't read too good, can you? Please point to the spot in my post where I mentioned "tariffs"

You didn't. That's why I said "in practical terms." Banning something, which you suggested, can and has been done by putting a prohibitive tax on it. The National Firearms Act in 1934, the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, the sugar tariffs I mentioned, and other examples abound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

But as consumers, we can choose to accept some advantages, and not others. Example: in the US we say we care about clean air/water, labor standards.

We should stand up for this choice and not allow our goods to be made without the same standards. Yeah, there's a cost advantage in China as you can dump pcbs in the water and push NO2 into the air. Well, drop a tariff on those countries approx equal to the cost of adhering to standards in the US.

It won't negate the entire cost advantage, but that's not the point.

Pigouvian costing has been put forward as not really being a tariff, only a costing of the negative externalities and therefore introducing a balance of real costs.  I support that entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Laker said:
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

We should stand up for this choice and not allow our goods to be made without the same standards. Yeah, there's a cost advantage in China as you can dump pcbs in the water and push NO2 into the air. Well, drop a tariff on those countries approx equal to the cost of adhering to standards in the US.

It won't negate the entire cost advantage, but that's not the point.

Pigouvian costing has been put forward as not really being a tariff, only a costing of the negative externalities and therefore introducing a balance of real costs.  I support that entirely.

I think you're both imagining government that is both competent and pure in motives. Communism would be great if people were like that but it's a disaster in practice because we are not. Just imagine, if you can, "costing" by Pigs who are corrupt and/or incompetent and impose taxes on political enemies while shielding political friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I think you're both imagining government that is both competent and pure in motives. Communism would be great if people were like that but it's a disaster in practice because we are not. Just imagine, if you can, "costing" by Pigs who are corrupt and/or incompetent and impose taxes on political enemies while shielding political friends.

Imagine not doing it, and seeing your manufacturing economy destroyed and the pollution keeps on going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S & EU hatch Mini-Deal to cut lobster, other tariffs

"Under the agreement, the European Union will remove tariffs of 8%-12% on imports of lobsters, while the United States will halve its duties on imports of certain glassware, ceramics, disposable lighters and prepared meals."

Lobsters has been a big thing on the menu in the US on account China has upped the tarrif on US lobsters in their trade war. This has forced NE lobster processors to look at exporting to China via Canada as a workaround. 

Which one is the parody??

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely the US is shooting itself in the foot with tariffs on goods where the US consumes more than it produces.  Aluminum, softwood lumber and sugar come to mind.  I guess the idea is that the domestic producer can charge more and thus make up for inherent inefficiencies in the domestic producer.  These three do not need any Pigouvian adjustments.  I guess the requirement for domestic aluminum is based on a secure source for things like aircraft, but then the US military could buy from the domestic producer at the higher price to take into account the security aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:
21 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I think you're both imagining government that is both competent and pure in motives. Communism would be great if people were like that but it's a disaster in practice because we are not. Just imagine, if you can, "costing" by Pigs who are corrupt and/or incompetent and impose taxes on political enemies while shielding political friends.

Imagine not doing it, and seeing your manufacturing economy destroyed and the pollution keeps on going.

I thought your idea was to control the labor and environmental policies of other countries, not to protect domestic producers from destruction through competition?

I'm not sure how we're supposed to price something like India's caste system and even if that question could be answered I doubt government officials have the knowledge, much less the inclination, to do it.

They have the inclination to cater to cronies, which is why FL has a sugar industry fucking up our Everglades. But I guess an answer to the topic question is, "noted crony capitalist Trump, Laker, and Razr." Oh, and Biden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I thought your idea was to control the labor and environmental policies of other countries, not to protect domestic producers from destruction through competition?

I'm not sure how we're supposed to price something like India's caste system and even if that question could be answered I doubt government officials have the knowledge, much less the inclination, to do it.

They have the inclination to cater to cronies, which is why FL has a sugar industry fucking up our Everglades. But I guess an answer to the topic question is, "noted crony capitalist Trump, Laker, and Razr." Oh, and Biden.

I believe you have an issue with free market failures.  Pigouvian pricing is not a tariff.  Notice that no one seems to do it, which is a human failure, which loops back to using market intervention for political gain.  Tariffs were one of the main mechanisms of Empire. The US has never been exempt from this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2020 at 6:27 AM, Laker said:

Definitely the US is shooting itself in the foot with tariffs on goods where the US consumes more than it produces.  Aluminum, softwood lumber and sugar come to mind. 

Not so much shooting itself in the foot with tarriffs but fucking with the market to the extent they are hurting themselves and don't see it happening. 

You cite aluminium tarriffs. Selectively applied, ignoring most favoured nation rules and forgetting countries  that have free trade agreements with the US. One such country doubled its aluninium exports to the US last year and Trump still scratching his head where that came from. 

Another example where the market is put into disarray by Trump.  Mexico Introduces Permits on Steel Exports As Trump Cracks Down. So Mexico introduces permits to “voluntarily” restrain exports of steel to US, in attempt to avoid more Trump tariffs. The result will be a higher price, with Mexico keeping equivalent of US tariff revenue.

The faster Trump goes and the faster the WTO gets back on a even keel the better off everyone will be.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Not so much shooting itself in the foot with tarriffs but fucking with the market to the extent they are hurting themselves and don't see it happening. 

You cite aluminium tarriffs. Selectively applied, ignoring most favoured nation rules and forgetting countries  that have free trade agreements with the US. One such country doubled its aluninium exports to the US last year and Trump still scratching his head where that came from. 

Another example where the market is put into disarray by Trump.  Mexico Introduces Permits on Steel Exports As Trump Cracks Down. So Mexico introduces permits to “voluntarily” restrain exports of steel to US, in attempt to avoid more Trump tariffs. The result will be a higher price, with Mexico keeping equivalent of US tariff revenue.

The faster Trump goes and the faster the WTO gets back on a even keel the better off everyone will be.

 

Trump has you where he wants you.  You are now a leading indicator in a larger scam.
 
#TrumphausenByProxy :  He makes things worse, causes pain, then backtracks  a bit towards to where things were before his meddling, and then he’s lauded as ‘being reasonable’, or worse, being a hero.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Amati said:

Trump has you where he wants you.  You are now a leading indicator in a larger scam. #TrumphausenByProxy....

You seem to forget there is a large group of people outside the US he is fucking up the arse. I'm one so I'm no fucking proxy for that cunts bullshitting plan. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Laker said:

I believe you have an issue with free market failures.  Pigouvian pricing is not a tariff.  Notice that no one seems to do it, which is a human failure, which loops back to using market intervention for political gain.  Tariffs were one of the main mechanisms of Empire. The US has never been exempt from this.

Actually, my big, final project in college was a proof that the free market and common property resources don't mix and impose user costs on future generations.

Pigouvian taxing is a tariff by another name. Maybe you can answer my question above: if we're going to use a Pigouvian (tax, tariff) to correct for labor market practices we don't like, what's the number to put on India's caste system?

I don't think Americans give half a shit about India's caste system. The trade war is about "protect our jobs" and nothing else, which is why union$ often $peak fondly of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites