# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?

## Lamp

My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it

----------


## kfarnan

who said that's true?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> who said that's true?


Everyone who agrees with this site's mission.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it


Show your dad Bastiat's candlestick makers' petition and ask him if he would sign it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ition-to-Trump

----------


## tod evans

> Everyone who agrees with this site's mission.


Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs any more than it grants another the right to impose them.

"This sights mission" 


> Mission Statement
> Foreword:
> Finding a core set of principles one can apply throughout one's life to achieve social harmony is a thought process that has been performed by philosophers throughout history. It is also a thought process that is applied here. The quest for core principles to build a society on has shown that the ideals of liberty and justice, coupled with free and honest markets, are a blueprint that allow for humanity to thrive. An approximate definition of these ideals is as follows:
> 
> Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
> Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.
> Free and honest markets: Individuals can exchange in trade without restriction and should be honest in their dealings.
> 
> While ideals are important, the application of them is equally as important which must be secured by society and governmental bodies, which must be supported by wise individuals. These realities necessitate additional ideals and principles.
> ...


Sane and logical arguments have been waged both for and against tariffs time and again, some of the more logical ones center around "honest markets"...

So a blanket statement couched as fact when it's nothing more than an opinion is disingenuous...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs


Yes it does.




> Sane and logical arguments have been waged both for and against tariffs time and again, some of the more logical ones center around "honest markets"...
> 
> So a blanket statement couched as fact when it's nothing more than an opinion is disingenuous...


That is ridiculous. No sane arguments for tariffs have ever been waged. They are a positively stupid and indefensible idea.

----------


## timosman

There is nothing in this life that can not be measured in money.

----------


## tod evans

> Yes it does.


Another opinion.

Liberty is what you have the ability to exercise in practice...

So show me big boy....

----------


## timosman

> Another opinion.
> 
> Liberty is what you have the ability to exercise in practice...
> 
> So show me big boy....


I just like to show everybody haw far from the ideal they are. I am, myself, not very successful IRL but I like to play the role of $#@! disturber.

----------


## tod evans

If no countries impose tariffs or import duties then there is a free market but when countries trade where one imposes duties and the other refrains then the market is no longer free. This too has been discussed ad-nauseam.



Ron has this to say;


> Free Trade
> 
> Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that free-trade agreements are really managed trade and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.
> 
> He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the AustraliaU.S. FTA, the U.S.Singapore FTA, and the U.S.Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that fast track powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the countrys behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.
> 
> Buy American, Unless (February 12, 2001)
> Members of Congress often encourage us to buy American during their speeches on the House floor. Some members regularly place a buy American clause in various trade-related bills, seeking to protect domestic jobs by encouraging the purchase of American goods. Ironically, however, many of these same legislators vote to prohibit American companies from gaining access to new markets overseas. They do so by supporting our senseless embargo policies, which simply help our foreign trading competitors at the expense of American companies.
> 
> ...


By my reading I come away with so long as one country imposes tariffs there can be no free markets...

Hence in order for you liberty to hinge on free markets you must impose your will on another nation which will of course infringe on their liberty...

While I'm typing.......... Explain the real world difference between import duties and tariffs..

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?*


They're not a bad thing, as long as you can do them without jabbing a gun into anyone's belly and saying. "Comply - or else!" ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why are tariffs and preventing outsourcing of jobs a bad thing?


They're not.

----------


## juleswin

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it


When I was little, I used to wonder why the govt cannot just fix prices of ice cream so that everybody can afford it, then I grew up. The problem with tarrifs is that other countries would retaliate in kind when you impose tariffs on their products. Most likely, what the country gains in imports, they would lose it in exports and it would be a wash at the end. With the US, other countries could be so mad that they may decided to break free from the dollar. That is when people would really understand what hardship really is.

----------


## timosman

> With the US, other countries could be so mad that they may decided to break free from the dollar. That is when people would really understand what hardship really is.


break free from the dollar = stop financing our deficit

----------


## juleswin

> break free from the dollar = stop financing our deficit


Yup, I am sure they aren't ready to face the consequences of doing that. They probably need someone like Trump to put them between a rock and a hard place to act. I read posts after post with people thinking the world is actually cheating America and I just shake my damn head and laugh.

----------


## timosman

> Yup, I am sure they aren't ready to face the consequences of doing that. They probably need someone like Trump to put them between a rock and a hard place to act. I read posts after post with people thinking the world is actually cheating America and I just shake my damn head and laugh.


I am sure we have enough military resources to convince them they should not be doing that

----------


## merkelstan

Lets say your State needs to raise 1 million revenue.
Which is least harmful?   Income tax?  Corporate tax?  Per-capita tax? ; Tariffs?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Who benefits from tariffs?  Businesses who cannot compete with foreign businesses. They don't have to become more efficient and can keep more of their profits (which are not necessarily passed along to their workers).  Who pays for tariffs?  Not the foreign companies- US consumers do with higher prices.

----------


## tod evans

> Who benefits from tariffs?  Businesses who cannot compete with foreign businesses.


And maybe the employees who still have a job..




> They don't have to become more efficient and can keep more of their profits (which are not necessarily passed along to their workers).


Evil business owners! Better to support foreign businesses who pay their workers in fishheads and rice.




> Who pays for tariffs?  Not the foreign companies- US consumers do with higher prices.


About the only US consumers left are those 'working' for government or one of her entities...........Oh.........And the evil business owners.


The issue of tariffs wouldn't be an issue if the feds weren't involved in businesses.....

----------


## oyarde

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it


You cannot really prevent jobs from leaving . The reasons jobs leave though are mostly not wages as people often think . A large company often has more at stake in taxes and expenses to meet govt regulation than any amount of wages . Tariffs can be bad in an environment like todays because there is so little mnfg here that imported goods will cost more . It could also be a good thing if you could eliminate other taxes because then it is mostly just a usage tax . Everything depends on how you slice it .

----------


## TheCount

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it


A tariff on foreign goods is functionally identical to a subsidy of domestic goods.  Would he support that?

Either way the government is interfering in the market to choose winners and losers.

----------


## oyarde

> A tariff on foreign goods is functionally identical to a subsidy of domestic goods.  Would he support that?
> 
> Either way the government is interfering in the market to choose winners and losers.


There will be no free markets until there is a complete collapse .

----------


## oyarde

> Lets say your State needs to raise 1 million revenue.
> Which is least harmful?   Income tax?  Corporate tax?  Per-capita tax? ; Tariffs?


If I was dictator of my state I would charge people of Illinois a toll to enter my state . Hopefully they would quit coming , but if not , free revenue .

----------


## Krugminator2

The counter question is why is preventing outsourcing a good thing? 

Jobs are not a goal and should never be a consideration in policy. Jobs are an expense. Employees are a headache. The definition of productivity is doing more with less.  Fewer workers for a given level of output is always desirable.

When you start with productivity in mind the answer is clear.  Cuba has no unemployment.  But is Cuba a good place to live? No. They don't prioritize productivity.  The prioritize jobs. The reason companies outsource is because it raises productivity.

Tariffs lower productivity for everyone. Both countries have a lower standard of living when one of the countries puts up a trade barrier.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *And maybe the employees who still have a job..*
> 
> 
> 
> Evil business owners! Better to support foreign businesses who pay their workers in fishheads and rice.
> 
> 
> 
> About the only US consumers left are those 'working' for government or one of her entities...........Oh.........And the evil business owners.


If I am paying higher prices due to tariffs, I have less money to spend at other businesses.  So they cut their labor force since I am spending fewer dollars with them.  one business benefited, consumers and other businesses were hurt. 




> The issue of tariffs wouldn't be an issue if the feds weren't involved in businesses.....


Of course if the government was not involved there would be no tariff and foreign businesses could compete against domestic ones.

----------


## tod evans

> If I am paying higher prices due to tariffs, I have less money to spend at other businesses.  So they cut their labor force since I am spending fewer dollars with them.  one business benefited, consumers and other businesses were hurt. 
> 
> 
> *
> Of course if the government was not involved there would be no tariff and foreign businesses could compete against domestic ones.*


And domestic ones wouldn't have to deal with burdensome regulations and restrictions...

If you want to spend your dollars paying overseas companies that's fine, I'd rather not.

I don't want government protecting your air or water any more than I want them inflicting tariffs...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And domestic ones wouldn't have to deal with burdensome regulations and restrictions...
> 
> If you want to spend your dollars paying overseas companies that's fine, I'd rather not.
> 
> *I don't want government protecting your air or water any more than I want them inflicting tariffs.*..

----------


## Swordsmyth

Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation, and they serve as economic insulation, so when your trading partners catch economic flu you don't get economic pneumonia. They have the side effect of providing stability, which is sorely lacking in today's efficiency obsessed world.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation, and they serve as economic insulation, so when your trading partners catch economic flu you don't get economic pneumonia. They have the side effect of providing stability, which is sorely lacking in today's efficiency obsessed world.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%...ley_Tariff_Act

I am not sure the safety and warmth and insulation from the cold cruel world provided by the Smoot Hawley Tariff was fully appreciated by people living in the 1930's.

----------


## tod evans

> 


Oh boy now that's a scary picture.........

Please Mr.Gubment man protect me from the evil businesses...

NOT!

Load your damn cities down, fill 'em up and choke the inhabitants...And good riddance. 

I don't want government involved AT ALL.

But....................If you want government to restrict and regulate production of goods within this country's borders then it's only right to inflict similar financial burdens on imported goods, and those 'tariffs' or duties should be paid directly to the businesses that produce goods here, NOT to any government agency..

----------


## Swordsmyth

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%...ley_Tariff_Act
> 
> I am not sure the safety and warmth and insulation from the cold cruel world provided by the Smoot Hawley Tariff was fully appreciated by people living in the 1930's.


Smoot Hawley was not MODERATE. Plus it was just a scape-goat for the real causes of the depression. (THE FED/EURO CENTRAL BANKS)

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Moderate Tariffs are one of the lowest impact forms of taxation


If you're just saying that one kind of taxation is less terrible than another, that's not saying much. They're all terrible, and none are a positive good thing in any way.




> and they serve as economic insulation, so when your trading partners catch economic flu you don't get economic pneumonia. They have the side effect of providing stability, which is sorely lacking in today's efficiency obsessed world.


What a ridiculous excuse for tariffs. You're basically saying they protect us from suffering a future economic downfall from a higher level to a lower level by permanently holding us down at that lower level so that we never get up to the higher level so as to be able to fall back down.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If you're just saying that one kind of  taxation is less terrible than another, that's not saying much. They're  all terrible, and none are a positive good thing in any way.


I will not debate anarchists. Some government, and therefore some taxes are necessary.






> What a ridiculous excuse for tariffs.  You're basically saying they protect us from suffering a future economic  downfall from a higher level to a lower level by permanently holding us  down at that lower level so that we never get up to the higher level so  as to be able to fall back down.


As with all insulation there is some loss of peak potential, but the  protection from catastrophe is greater. And long term growth is better,  plants grow better in the tropics than in zones with wild temperature  swings.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I will not debate anarchists. Some government, and therefore some taxes are necessary.


If you believe in taxes, and you won't debate those who don't (like the guy this website is named for and everyone who supports this site's mission statement), then why are you even here?

----------


## otherone

> Hence in order for _you liberty_ to hinge on free markets _you must_ impose your will on another nation which will of course infringe on _their liberty_...


Completely confused by this.   Whose liberty will be infringed upon?

----------


## tod evans

> Liberty doesn't grant you the right to be free from tariffs any more than it grants another the right to impose them.





> Yes it does.





> Completely confused by this.   Whose liberty will be infringed upon?


Still confused?

----------


## merkelstan

You can debate whether an an-cap state is the ultimate goal or not, while agreeing that reducing the state is a common goal.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> If you believe in taxes, and you won't debate those who don't (like the guy this website is named for and everyone who supports this site's mission statement), then why are you even here?


The absurdity is astounding.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax _of some kind_ even if he had been elected president.

Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> you won't debate


 Debate?  Debate whom?

Debate =/= listening to low IQ blowhards thoughtlessly repeat the same talking points over and over ad tedium.

You don't debate anyone, erowe (except on religion).  In order to debate, you'd have to have something to say.  No offense!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Both countries have a lower standard of living when one of the countries puts up a trade barrier.


 This is absolutely true.  Undeniable (at least in the immediate short-term -- long term, we can never know; too many factors and humans are unpredictable).

But......

Actually, before I say my "but..." let me disclaimer for all the partisan zealots eager to pounce on any deviation from orthodoxy: I do not support tariffs, I believe free trade is best.  I'm totally on board the freedom train.  OK?  OK.

But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living _high enough_?  Is there some point at which it may be wise to say "I'm rich enough already; time to focus on other things."  Things like, oh, the continuation of your civilization, the prospects for your children and grandchildren in _their_ lives.  Or how about the ability of those of moderate ability and IQ -- the great big, fat center of the bell curve -- to find any gainful, meaningful employment?

Or is that all against the rules?  Is the only thing we're allowed to care about the Annual Statistical Report on the GDP?

It is _not_ against the rules.  One of the great praxeological insights of Mises, Rothbard, et. al., is that *value is subjective*.  There exists no objective interpersonal value unit: we find no such unit in "Utils," and we certainly do not in "dollars."

So, the consummately narcissistic argument of ZippyJuan that we ought not to have tariffs because then "I am paying higher prices" (Oh noes!) and so "I have less money" (Stop it!  The horror!) is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone, other than himself.  And perhaps other narcissists.

On the other hand, arguments such as Tod Evans' looking at society-wide effects of policies, considering the effects on other human beings such as "maybe the employees who still have a job," and thinking about the long-term effects on the next generations, this kind of broader thinking is going to seem much more mature and responsible to, well, anyone who cares about the future and is not a rabid narcissist or blind partisan.  That is: all normal, decent people.

Just some thoughts!  Just some thoughts.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The absurdity is astounding.
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax _of some kind_ even if he had been elected president.
> 
> Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.


The person I was responding to wasn't just saying there would be taxes of some kind, but that they are a positive good which he supports.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Debate?  Debate whom?


You're replying to the wrong person. My reference to him not debating was a paraphrase of what he had said in the quote box that anyone can see right at the top of my post.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The person I was responding to wasn't just saying there would be taxes of some kind, but that they are a positive good which he supports.



I said no such thing. I said Tariffs are less bad, and have some good side effects. Some government and therefore some taxes are necessary, and tariffs are part of the best solution to that problem.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I said no such thing. I said Tariffs are less bad, and have some good side effects. Some government and therefore some taxes are necessary, and tariffs are part of the best solution to that problem.


So you do positively support taxes as a means of funding what you consider to be necessary government.

----------


## Dr.No.

> The absurdity is astounding.
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax _of some kind_ even if he had been elected president.
> 
> Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.


In fact, Ron Paul supports taxes as a local and state level (he's advocated for government at those levels)...he just hates federal taxes. When I mentioned to him how state taxes where much higher pre-1913, he said he wouldn't have a problem with that and even agreed that some states with low taxes and low governance would suffer for it.




> This is absolutely true. Undeniable (at least in the immediate short-term -- long term, we can never know; too many factors and humans are unpredictable).
> 
> But......
> 
> Actually, before I say my "but..." let me disclaimer for all the partisan zealots eager to pounce on any deviation from orthodoxy: I do not support tariffs, I believe free trade is best. I'm totally on board the freedom train. OK? OK.
> 
> But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living _high enough_? Is there some point at which it may be wise to say "I'm rich enough already; time to focus on other things." Things like, oh, the continuation of your civilization, the prospects for your children and grandchildren in _their_ lives. Or how about the ability of those of moderate ability and IQ -- the great big, fat center of the bell curve -- to find any gainful, meaningful employment?
> 
> Or is that all against the rules? Is the only thing we're allowed to care about the Annual Statistical Report on the GDP?
> ...


Basically, your argument is, what is so wrong with society as a whole willing to give up some kind efficiency or productivity for other things?

I agree that the vast majority of studies conclude that free trade is a win-win-win (we win, our trade partners win, the whole world wins). But those studies look at what has historically happened; jobs that fled overseas were replaced by domestic jobs in new industries. In a paradigm where the later does not happen...the studies would have to evolve.

----------


## newbitech

> then why are you even here?


probably cause it's an interesting site to him?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> And maybe the employees who still have a job..


They would benefit too. At the expense of consumers. Should you be forced to subsidize the jobs of factory workers any more than you should be forced to subsidize the jobs of bureaucrats? Are the jobs that aren't created because you have to pay more money for existing products less valuable than the jobs that are saved?




> But.... it is a reasonable question to ask: at what point is your standard of living _high enough_?


Whenever I decide it is. Not when you decide it is.

----------


## tod evans

> They would benefit too. At the expense of consumers.


Factory workers are consumers too.




> Should you be forced to subsidize the jobs of factory workers any more than you should be forced to subsidize the jobs of bureaucrats?


Absolutely not.




> Are the jobs that aren't created because you have to pay more money for existing products less valuable than the jobs that are saved?


What?

Jobs that aren't created?

What "jobs are saved"?


Now how about the remainder of my post?




> Evil business owners! Better to support foreign businesses who pay their workers in fishheads and rice.
> 
> About the only US consumers left are those 'working' for government or one of her entities...........Oh.........And the evil business owners.
> 
> The issue of tariffs wouldn't be an issue if the feds weren't involved in businesses.....

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> If I was dictator of my state I would charge people of Illinois a toll to enter my state . Hopefully they would quit coming , but if not , free revenue .


Kind of like the opposite of New Jersey.  It is free to get in, but cost $3-$6 to get out depending on the bridge you take.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Factory workers are consumers too.


Bureaucrats are taxpayers too.




> What?
> 
> Jobs that aren't created?
> 
> What "jobs are saved"?


The jobs that supposedly wouldn't be outsourced because of a tariff. The higher prices leave less money for consumers to spend on other products, which means there will be fewer people working in other industries that otherwise would have been.




> Now how about the remainder of my post?


If you don't want to buy from a foreign company that pays their workers in fish heads, you shouldn't have to. If I do want to buy from them, I shouldn't be taxed for the privilege.

And no, tariffs and free trade wouldn't be a discussion if not for the federal government's meddling. But that doesn't mean tariffs would make anything better. It would just be another nail in our coffins.

----------


## tod evans

> Bureaucrats are taxpayers too.


I don't see it that way.

These leaches live on honestly earned money forcibly extracted from the productive class....

Playing games with their lucre allotment to make it appear as though they're actually productive is nothing more than simple propaganda. 





> The jobs that supposedly wouldn't be outsourced because of a tariff. The higher prices leave less money for consumers to spend on other products, which means there will be fewer people working in other industries that otherwise would have been.


I don't want tariffs any more than I want government interfering when the "factory workers" retaliate against consumers who buy foreign made goods.

One branch of government makes it so it's cost prohibitive for factories to produce while the other branch protects them, then the third branch justifies the whole charade.






> If you don't want to buy from a foreign company that pays their workers in fish heads, you shouldn't have to. If I do want to buy from them, I shouldn't be taxed for the privilege.


No you shouldn't be "taxed for the privilege" nor should you be protected from the consequences.




> And no, tariffs and free trade wouldn't be a discussion if not for the federal government's meddling. But that doesn't mean tariffs would make anything better. It would just be another nail in our coffins.


If "we" continue to permit government to interfere in the markets then tariffs are no worse than the regulations and impositions a US manufacturer must suffer under.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Whenever I decide it is. Not when you decide it is.


Indeed.  I do not presume to decide anything for anyone else.

Please kindly do not imply that I do.  Thanks. 


By the way,  @The Gold Standard , have you seen my new project enabling you to put yourself on the gold standard?

----------


## angelatc

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it


In a free market it drives prices up by forcing artificial shortages.  But this isn't a free market.  American employers must pay minimum wages, adhere to environmental and safety regulations, and in general provide a much costlier business environment than the 3rd world economies do.  In theory, tariffs serve to level the playing field.  In reality, government is always  too slow to react to changing markets and the regulations end up harming the economy.

----------


## angelatc

> If "we" continue to permit government to interfere in the markets then tariffs are no worse than the regulations and impositions a US manufacturer must suffer under.


Yep.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> By the way,  @The Gold Standard , have you seen my new project enabling you to put yourself on the gold standard?


I saw the thread for it, but I didn't read about it yet. It's all a good idea, but as long as people are accepting paper dollars, I would be an idiot to pay someone in gold.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I saw the thread for it, but I didn't read about it yet. It's all a good idea, but as long as people are accepting paper dollars, I would be an idiot to pay someone in gold.


True.  But I think if you read the intro page, it might answer that objection.

https://Midas.gold/intro

----------


## cavalier973

Protective Tariffs are a form of government interference with the market, which increases inefficiencies and results in wasted resources. A protective tariff is also a form of corporate welfare, similar (in kind, if not degree) to the ACA's mandate that everyone purchase health insurance.
The protective tariff is also a violation of an individual's right to dispose of the product of his labor in the way he deems best. Discussion of such a tariff, I think, should be coupled with the discussion of govt subsidies to domestic firms, which cause the same problems. Imposing a tariff to "remedy" the problems that arise from other government interventions and taxes is a suboptimal action. It only adds to the problems.

A low revenue tariff as a replacement for the income tax would be a beneficial change, I think.

Government policies and legislation that restrict outsourcing of jobs is a violation of property rights, and also--as a form of government intervention--create inefficiencies in the economy. Labor is an economic resource, and government intervention to keep labor prices high create the same problems that keeping the price of lumber, or apples, or technical equipment high does. Passing laws to prevent outsourcing is a situation of the govt handing you crutches after it had broken your legs (through interventions like licensing and the minimum wage).

----------


## Seraphim

> A tariff on foreign goods is functionally identical to a subsidy of domestic goods.  Would he support that?
> 
> Either way the government is interfering in the market to choose winners and losers.


This is true. So let's extrapolate this into the real world. If you open up national borders for economic trade and you are competing with countries run by dictatorships with slave waves **cough, China, cough** and allow those goods to flow in, you are then, in effect, subsidizing slavery.

If the world were filled with liberty oriented nations with labor markets and regulations that were on par, the free trade philosophy works.

As of now, Canadians and Americans must compete with slave waves.

It's not free trade when one country has an army of slaves.

----------


## TheCount

> This is true. So let's extrapolate this into the real world. If you open up national borders for economic trade and you are competing with countries run by dictatorships with slave waves **cough, China, cough** and allow those goods to flow in, you are then, in effect, subsidizing slavery.


We don't get to decide other countries' policies, just our own.  At that point, you have the option to either only trade with countries who share our policies, in which case welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations, or else to maintain free trade ideals and just do our thing.

Also, lack of American trade hasn't suddenly 'fixed' any of the countries that we've sanctioned.  Quite to the contrary, we've had much better results by trading rather than by not trading.






> It's not free trade when one country has an army of slaves.


Could make that same argument between certain states in the US.

Not only that, but depending on whose measure of poverty and slave wages you use, a larger percentage of Americans live in poverty than Chinese.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Not only that, but depending on whose measure of poverty and slave wages you use, a larger percentage of Americans live in poverty than Chinese.



Source?

----------


## LibForestPaul

> When I was little, I used to wonder why the govt cannot just fix prices of ice cream so that everybody can afford it, then I grew up. The problem with tarrifs is that other countries would retaliate in kind when you impose tariffs on their products. Most likely, what the country gains in imports, they would lose it in exports and it would be a wash at the end. With the US, other countries could be so mad that they may decided to break free from the dollar. That is when people would really understand what hardship really is.


Who care's if they retaliate? America w Canada, if only those two countries existed on earth, its inhabitants would live fine and healthy and well to do. Live for those citizens goes on without China, Cuba, Brazil, Germany, England. 

Now a country like Ireland, or Belgium, or Cuba, now those countries need to trade to even exist.

----------


## osan

> My dad asked this question and I didn't know how to answer it



The answer is that it isn't, _in sé_.

Standard macro economic theories tend to ignore politics and assume some populations are not dangerous to others.  This, of course, is an impossibly flawed assumption proven wholly false every single day that anyone has ever lived on this planet since at least the beginning of our recorded history.

Because of bad actors who fail to play nicely with others, there are those circumstances where measures must be taken to neutralize actions that would otherwise result in harm to one's interests.

Example: Nation A decides to produce fundamental widgets at a loss in order to drive competition from nations B, C, and D out of business,  They make widgets of equal quality at 1/5 the price.  The widget makers in B,C,and D would eventually go out of business because they simply could not compete with a taxpayer-funded loss-leader.

The "government" of B institutes a tariff of 400% to bring the real cost of purchasing A's widgets within, say, 15-20% of what domestically produced units would cost.  Some call this dirty pool, but in truth it is a defensive measure against what in this case is a clear act of economic warfare against your domestic widget industry.  

Widgeteers in C and D go out of business, but those in B survive, if worse for wear.

Such interference is lousy.  The necessity for it (assuming the desire to preserve _something_) is lousier still because it tends to lend credibility in people's minds to the notion that government is valid.

----------

