# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Tariffs are bad

## Legend1104

I thought this was so crazy that I had to repost it here as a new topic.

(Beginning Quote)
Originally Posted by charrob  
thanks for the link... i did not realize he believed in tariffs! 

your description of our Founders using tariffs makes perfect sense, as it will help our manufacturing base in our country become strong again. (End Quote)

This is absolutely unbelievable. Tariffs are a horrible thing for our economy. They go against everything that Austrian economics stands for. Also, Our founders were not for protectionist tariffs. As a matter of fact, Jefferson was very much against it. People like Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln supported tariffs to help promote the American system. Tariffs were one of the biggest reasons that the South left the Union. First off, did you even read that link from Ron Paul. He was not supporting tariffs! He even said that tariffs only hurt people by giving them higher prices. All a tariff does is force people to pay higher prices for goods. For example, say that a chinese company can give us a $5 shirt and American businesses can only do it at $8 dollars. Then if the government charges a $4 tariff on Chinese shirts to put the price of Chinese shirts at $9 dollars, of course people will buy the now cheaper $8 shirt. That would help the American business, but at what cost?! The American people now are forced to pay more money for their shirts. This means that they are not able to spend that extra money on something else, like a pair of pants. So tariffs would hurt the buyer, the Chinese company, other companies that will now not get that extra money that is now spent on American shirts, and employees that are put out of work at the pants store because now they are not making as much because all of that extra money is going to the shirts. The only group that benefits is in fact that American shirt company. As a matter of fact, in the long run even the shirt company will be hurt because the tariff will eventually make America more poor and will eat at their profits. If a company cannot make goods at a competitive price, it should fail. The tariffs of the 1800s failed by the way, they did not work. They caused the South to be overly burdened with unfair tariffs at the benefit of the North and eventually led to the War of Southern Independence and the eventual increase in the government that is robbing us of our liberties. America needs true free trade, which is trade without barriers or tariffs.
__________________

----------


## MN Patriot

The dilemma that government faces is how to raise revenue without creating a rebellion. When the government first imposed tariffs, it was the easiest way to collect the money, where ships docked and were easily accounted for. Smugglers bypassed the ports to avoid tariffs.

Like any tax, rates that are too high will cause unnecessary side effects, like the ones you mentioned. 

Ultimately, the people need to keep the politicians honest and accountable. We can't let them create and raise taxes, and spend and borrow to their hearts content. Of course it is difficult to reign in government when half the population are communists.

----------


## sratiug

> I thought this was so crazy that I had to repost it here as a new topic.
> 
> (Beginning Quote)
> Originally Posted by charrob  
> thanks for the link... i did not realize he believed in tariffs! 
> 
> your description of our Founders using tariffs makes perfect sense, as it will help our manufacturing base in our country become strong again. (End Quote)
> 
> This is absolutely unbelievable. Tariffs are a horrible thing for our economy. They go against everything that Austrian economics stands for. Also, Our founders were not for protectionist tariffs. As a matter of fact, Jefferson was very much against it. People like Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln supported tariffs to help promote the American system. Tariffs were one of the biggest reasons that the South left the Union. First off, did you even read that link from Ron Paul. He was not supporting tariffs! He even said that tariffs only hurt people by giving them higher prices. All a tariff does is force people to pay higher prices for goods. For example, say that a chinese company can give us a $5 shirt and American businesses can only do it at $8 dollars. Then if the government charges a $4 tariff on Chinese shirts to put the price of Chinese shirts at $9 dollars, of course people will buy the now cheaper $8 shirt. That would help the American business, but at what cost?! The American people now are forced to pay more money for their shirts. This means that they are not able to spend that extra money on something else, like a pair of pants. So tariffs would hurt the buyer, the Chinese company, other companies that will now not get that extra money that is now spent on American shirts, and employees that are put out of work at the pants store because now they are not making as much because all of that extra money is going to the shirts. The only group that benefits is in fact that American shirt company. As a matter of fact, in the long run even the shirt company will be hurt because the tariff will eventually make America more poor and will eat at their profits. If a company cannot make goods at a competitive price, it should fail. The tariffs of the 1800s failed by the way, they did not work. They caused the South to be overly burdened with unfair tariffs at the benefit of the North and eventually led to the War of Southern Independence and the eventual increase in the government that is robbing us of our liberties. America needs true free trade, which is trade without barriers or tariffs.
> __________________


Jefferson was proud that the federal government relied on tariffs.  Why would anyone support stifling free trade among the United States to ensure free trade internationally?  Having internal taxes with no tariffs is subsidizing imports.  After you eliminate internal taxes then come back and talk about lowering tariffs.

----------


## fj45lvr

I fail to see how the example of shirts means that a tariff is going to hurt the U.S. buyer who is going to pay more (often only pennies more)?? Because the factory and the farmers in the U.S. will still be producing and supplying income to the people of that industry (this is significant and cumulative across manufacturing industries)....not to mention that often times foreign products are "subsidized" or strategically planned for corporate "dumping" (both of which are NOT "free market" competition).  

How is seeing the vast majority of manufacturing leave the U.S. for foreign nations "good" for the U.S. considering that many (if not most) markets for goods that have been completely taken over by foreign producers in comparison to goods that are still produced in the U.S. have risen in price much more steeply because they control the market.  (appliances are one example, where they have not risen in price to the extent that other goods that are nearly 100% imports)

Many foreign producers are quite fortunate not to have to deal with piles of regulation heaped on them by U.S. bureaucrats in addition to being much less likely to have workers filing claims for things such as carpal-tunnel syndrome and other "candy-ass" complaints of a soft U.S. work ethic and culture of fraud.  I would love to know the difference in production if all things were equal in facilities and tools to produce (instead of claims of superior production padded by technological superiority on one side).

----------


## eric_cartman

we do need to fund government somehow... but if the government is very small, than the total amount of tax collected will be very small.  so the question is, what is the best way to collect this small amount of tax? All taxes are bad... but we do need to tax something to fund government.

so having a tariff (import tax) on imported goods isn't the worst thing in the world to tax.  and one of the main reasons why foreigners are willing to export their goods to the United States (or any country) is because they have a stable government to enforce the rule of law.  So having a government helps to faciliate international trade... and therefore, it's reasonable to have a small tariff because this fee is used to ensure that trade operates smoothly.  importers and exporters use the services that the government provides (the laws that ensure that trade contracts are enforced) and therefore, they should have to pay for these services.

----------


## noxagol

Tariffs, like all taxes, are bad. Tariff's are just the most acceptable tax since it is percieved to hurt 'the other guy' and not 'one of our own'.

The reason Jefferson was proud of funding with just tariffs was because he was the first person in history, I think, to fund government without taxing its own people. 

Any action that can be done without the need for government intervention IS a free-market action. If an action rely's on the government in order to be done, it IS NOT a free-market action.

----------


## therepublic

*The reason our Founding Fathers imposed tariffs* was because the States were too dependent on  goods from England giving considerable power to England over the States, and making independence impossible. (much like our dependence on foreign food,  oil etc. now)

The tariffs encouraged citizens to buy American, and encourage local business to start up.  Thus business in the U.S. flourished....*it was crucial in gaining our Sovereignty*.  The Founding Fathers intended it to be used on imported goods only, but it eventually was abused, and political leaders put higher tariffs on Southern goods than on the North.  Some say this was the real reason for the Civil War.

*Gandhi used a similar idea, but without tariffs  to gain India's independence from England.*  He encouraged people to refuse to use goods from England...to spin their own cotton for clothing, and return to the traditional clothing.  They resisted England's attempts to stop them from gathering their own salt at the sea.

*Here is Ron Paul's plan:*
Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin  Washington  is building for the US  economy.    Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way.  A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico  to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States .   Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns.   Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.  



Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935.   The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes.  American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them.   Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit.   Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further.   This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.



The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing.   Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon.   *All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. *  Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here.  Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs  consumers do, in the form of higher prices.   If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them.  But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade.   And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety.  Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so. 

More of the Article here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

----------


## Godisnowhere

So no tariffs is good for the US eh? When the Japanese subsidize their car industry so that their export prices are low, then dump them in the US that is fair for competition eh? And when the Chineese manipulate their currency value to keep it artificially low so that their exports can be dumped in the USA that is fair competition eh? And when the Chineese violate our patents and trade secrets and dump their stuff here that is good for the US because of lower prices eh? This all sounds like it is coming from a lobbyist who has padded the Congress pockets all in the name of free but totally unfair trade.

----------


## Stary Hickory

Tariffs absolutely do not help us. They are a means to fund the government and that is all. They can be used against Americans, by forcing us to patronize inefficient companies who use government to ban competition.

There is no economical argument that can be made for tariffs. It increases the cost of buying goods and services INSIDE the country. We must produce something to trade for foreign goods, however if foreigners can produce certain products more efficiently that we can, it behooves us to forgo production of those items and concentrate on those areas where we excel, then we can trade other countries.

This is just an extension of the division of labor, which makes the overall process much more efficient. Tariffs impede this process. They ought to be flat and they ought to be as low as possible. Tariffs are not much different that a consumption tax on foreign goods. And it also raises the prices of goods and service in the US. Companies like to use government to hinder competition, and hence another reason for slimy lobbyists.

Austrian Economists understand the true nature of tariffs. They are harmful.

----------


## sratiug

> I thought this was so crazy that I had to repost it here as a new topic.
> 
> (Beginning Quote)
> Originally Posted by charrob  
> thanks for the link... i did not realize he believed in tariffs! 
> 
> your description of our Founders using tariffs makes perfect sense, as it will help our manufacturing base in our country become strong again. (End Quote)
> 
> This is absolutely unbelievable. Tariffs are a horrible thing for our economy. They go against everything that Austrian economics stands for. Also, Our founders were not for protectionist tariffs. As a matter of fact, Jefferson was very much against it. People like Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln supported tariffs to help promote the American system. Tariffs were one of the biggest reasons that the South left the Union. First off, did you even read that link from Ron Paul. He was not supporting tariffs! He even said that tariffs only hurt people by giving them higher prices. All a tariff does is force people to pay higher prices for goods. For example, say that a chinese company can give us a $5 shirt and American businesses can only do it at $8 dollars. Then if the government charges a $4 tariff on Chinese shirts to put the price of Chinese shirts at $9 dollars, of course people will buy the now cheaper $8 shirt. That would help the American business, but at what cost?! The American people now are forced to pay more money for their shirts. This means that they are not able to spend that extra money on something else, like a pair of pants. So tariffs would hurt the buyer, the Chinese company, other companies that will now not get that extra money that is now spent on American shirts, and employees that are put out of work at the pants store because now they are not making as much because all of that extra money is going to the shirts. The only group that benefits is in fact that American shirt company. As a matter of fact, in the long run even the shirt company will be hurt because the tariff will eventually make America more poor and will eat at their profits. If a company cannot make goods at a competitive price, it should fail. The tariffs of the 1800s failed by the way, they did not work. They caused the South to be overly burdened with unfair tariffs at the benefit of the North and eventually led to the War of Southern Independence and the eventual increase in the government that is robbing us of our liberties. America needs true free trade, which is trade without barriers or tariffs.
> __________________



All of your arguments can be made more effective when turned against internal taxes. Internal taxes have all of the same free trade problems, they raise the price of everything made in the US, they raise the cost of US labor, plus they compound the problem by forcing manufacturing out of the country. Tariffs do not have this problem and that is why they are superior to internal taxes. One country subsidizing another's production is a vastly bigger problem than the same country subsidizing its own production.

Jefferson ran the entire country on tariffs alone. The Confederacy enacted a 10% tariff, they were not against tariffs, they were against tyrrany. Ron Paul has said the tariff is the least intrusive federal tax.

----------


## sratiug

Can any of you flat tariff haters explain how any internal tax is superior to a tariff?  Explain how internal taxes do not drive up the costs of everything made in the US?  Explain how internal taxes do not inhibit free trade?  Oh, that's right, you can't.  Because every argument you make against a tariff applies doubly to internal taxes.  We pay the tax whether it is a tariff or an internal tax.  The tariff has some benefit that comes to us along with its problems.  Internal taxes have no benefit and cause more problems for free trade in the US thus subsidizing foreign workers and production.

----------


## eric_cartman

> So no tariffs is good for the US eh? When the Japanese subsidize their car industry so that their export prices are low, then dump them in the US that is fair for competition eh? And when the Chineese manipulate their currency value to keep it artificially low so that their exports can be dumped in the USA that is fair competition eh? And when the Chineese violate our patents and trade secrets and dump their stuff here that is good for the US because of lower prices eh? This all sounds like it is coming from a lobbyist who has padded the Congress pockets all in the name of free but totally unfair trade.


we can tell the Japanese... thanks for your cheap cars.

we can tell the Chinese... thanks for your cheap manufactured products. 

it does not hurt the United States ability to produce, if other countries can produce something cheaper.

the whole idea of an economy is to make stuff.  And basically, all economies organize scarce land, labour and capital to produce good and services that we want.  So the United States just tries to make as much stuff as possible with the resources it has available.  And the United States can then take some of the stuff they make, and trade it with other countries for the stuff that they make.  And if other countries want to give us a better deal on our trades, that works out better for us. 

Let's say that Japan decided to export cars to us for the price of a loaf of bread.... so they were basically selling us cars for $2 each (when it really costs them $8,000 to make each car).  would this be bad? would we be all upset at the Japanese for selling us such cheap cars? we would be very happy... because then we don't have to use up all our scarce resources making cars... we can just focus on making bread and trade each loaf of bread to the Japanese for one of their cars.  sounds like the United States comes out pretty good from that deal, and the Japanese get screwed.

----------


## theoakman

Umm, this nation became the richest nation in the world with 200+ years of tariffs.  The market economy can still function with tariffs in place taxing foreign goods.  Furthermore, free trade isn't in the best interest of the nation that is at the top.  Free trade is good for the world at large, but it was awful for the United States.  Even absent our regulations, you can't compete with a nation that employs workers who make 2000 dollars a year.  The fact of the matter is, a free market in the global economy was not in the best interests of the American people.  Did it help the rest of the world?  Yes.  Did it help America?  Hell no.

In the present day American economy, if an American comes up with a viable product, we outsource the labor to China, we borrow money from them to consume it.  The net result is, wealth gets sucked out of the US.  The more innovative we are, the more wealth we suck away from ourselves.

The fact of the matter is, a tariff is the perfect solution for the government to counteract the actions of other governments that prefer to cheat in the game of international trade (That's you China).  Foreign countries prevent the US from being able to effectively manufacture products for foreign consumption by pegging their currencies to ours and depriving their citizens of purchasing power.  Had we raised tariffs in the 80s, we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

----------


## therepublic

Free Trade is not government regulated.  NAFTA & WTO are government regulated...nothing to do with free trade. They are about "Globalization" .

YouTube - Ron Paul on Globalization

----------


## Legend1104

First off, I do not support internal taxes either. I was not saying, "tariffs bad, internal taxes, good." All taxes/tariffs are theft. Tariffs have no benefit either. They hurt the buyer who has to pay higher prices. They hurt the foreign business, and they hurt other businesses that will not get the extra money that is having to be spent on the higher tariff supported goods. Also, earlier someone said that pennies extra with tariffs isn't bad. Governments always cry for more. It may start low, but it will always grow larger. The largest tariff, the tariff of abominations, was about 62%! Sure some mild form of tax is needed to fund the government, but to say that a tariff in and of itself is a good thing is crazy. Also, specialization is not bad. America does not need to be self-sufficient. Also, their is no such thing as trade that is only good for one group. Read more Austrian economics. To say that free trade hurts the one on top is also crazy. No one makes a trade unless he gets more than he started with. Trade benefits everyone involved. The reason that alot of the labor is sent to China is because of minimum wage laws and other regulations that increase the price production. That is why the government was never meant to get involved with the economy in anyway except to regulate it for unsafe practices. Taxes and tariffs are only supposed to be used to support the government. They are not supposed to be used to create economic policy.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> First off, I do not support internal taxes either. I was not saying, "tariffs bad, internal taxes, good." All taxes/tariffs are theft.


Perhaps you should have titled your thread "taxes are bad."

----------


## noxagol

> Perhaps you should have titled your thread "taxes are bad."


Tariffs are bad != Internal taxes good.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> Tariffs absolutely do not help us. They are a means to fund the government and that is all. They can be used against Americans, by forcing us to patronize inefficient companies who use government to ban competition.


I'm starting to think some of you are masochists who believe in philosophy more than reality. 

Tariffs force us to patronize "inefficient" companies? So the definition of efficiency for you is a company which pays its employees next to nothing, under horrible conditions, in a country with a naturally lower standard of living than ours. 

Explain to me how our companies and workers can naturally "compete" with ones that house 20 workers in a tin shack with no sewage. No matter what our companies do here, they will never be able to match prices with the Chinese or Indians because the quality of life is different there. Then there's the currency issue. How is that any mark of shame against our companies?




> There is no economical argument that can be made for tariffs. It increases the cost of buying goods and services INSIDE the country. We must produce something to trade for foreign goods, however if foreigners can produce certain products more efficiently that we can, it behooves us to forgo production of those items and concentrate on those areas where we excel, then we can trade other countries.


1. So what? I would gladly pay a little more for what I buy if it was keeping my countrymen employed. If a company I'm patronizing has goods made overseas, then aren't I only enriching the CEOs of that company with no other benefit to anyone else except that I can temporarily buy things at a theoretically lower price...while I still HAVE a job? I don't see screwing over tons of people so I can save on a shirt to be worth it. Here's another question: When production goes overseas, how much of the savings goes into retail price drops and how much goes into the CEO's pocket? 

2. What exactly is it that we can produce to sell to China and India that they cannot do themselves much cheaper? What are the magic industries that will fill the giant gaping hole that outsourcing has left? Enlighten me. Also, there's that word "efficiently" again. I'm curious about that.


There are quite a few tenets of libertarianism that I agree with, but after seeing the effects of globalization (aka race to the bottom) over so many years, it amazes me people are still not getting the scam. Each time a branch of manufacturing went overseas, the globalists reassured us it was for the best, and that we still had SECTOR X to hold onto. Then X went away too, and they pointed to Y...then Y went away, and they told us that we're a white collar services economy now, so it didn't matter. We were supposed to be all about information and computers. Then the tech jobs started going to India too. 

Do they have to outsource order taking at McDonalds before you realize what's really happening? Oh wait, they're experimenting with that now, if I remember correctly.

I'm thinking that efficiency shouldn't just be about making the largest number of widgets at the lowest cost. There are all kinds of horrible things you can do to make that bar graph go up. Slavery is really efficient. Tons of product. Your only cost is minimally feeding the slaves. You don't even have to do that if you have enough of them. There should be an equilibrium between that idea and providing a decent living standard for the people making the widgets. Are the hardcore objectivists cheering for Chinese standards of live in the US?

----------


## Fox McCloud

I think everyone here needs to listen to several of Walter Block's lectures on Free Trade:

http://mises.org/media/1897
http://mises.org/media/1903

who really cares if China manipulates its currency or other countries subsidize their products? It just allows us to get other goods on the cheap; it gives us an advantage, not a disadvantage.

I'm really not sure what's happened to Ron Paul forums, but of late, it seems that protectionism, regulating banks, bailing out mortgage holders, and some minor forms of socialism are ok. I'm really not sure where or how this developed; while that element has been here since the beginning, it seems to have taken on new vibrance in the past couple of months.

----------


## noxagol

> I'm really not sure what's happened to Ron Paul forums, but of late, it seems that protectionism, regulating banks, bailing out mortgage holders, and some minor forms of socialism are ok. I'm really not sure where or how this developed; while that element has been here since the beginning, it seems to have taken on new vibrance in the past couple of months.


I know what you mean. Been feeling that what myself.

----------


## eric_cartman

^^^
i don't really agree.  i think most people here are still pretty hardcore libertarian.  obviously we sometimes get new posters around who maybe aren't "true believers" in the libertarian philosophy, but i think for the most part, these forums haven't really changed.  i haven't noticed any real difference between now and 6 months ago.

i don't know how many of you ever post on any other forums... but you wouldn't believe the kind of stuff that gets posted by normal people with respect to economics and finance.  i post on the 2+2 poker forums (cause i'm a pro poker player) and it's a huge forum and it's got politics and investment forums ... and it hurts my head to read some of the stuff that people write.  there are quite a few libertarians there also, but for the most part, it's just full of brainwashed idiots.  everyone in the investment forums talks about making real estate "investments" in the United States... they all hate on gold bugs... and they think the best investment advice is to buy vanguard mutual funds. so after posting there, it's really a breath of fresh air to come back and post here where everyone is more or less on the same page as me... and half the time i don't even need to post because someone else will have already replied with the identical response that i would have wrote.  but trying to explain gold to people... or telling them about the different unemployment figures or what have you is very frusterating.  so i love posting here because i'm around like minded individuals, and i don't think there's many other places (online or in the real world) where so many people all believe in the same political philosophies.

----------


## theoakman

> I think everyone here needs to listen to several of Walter Block's lectures on Free Trade:
> 
> http://mises.org/media/1897
> http://mises.org/media/1903
> 
> who really cares if China manipulates its currency or other countries subsidize their products? It just allows us to get other goods on the cheap; it gives us an advantage, not a disadvantage.
> 
> I'm really not sure what's happened to Ron Paul forums, but of late, it seems that protectionism, regulating banks, bailing out mortgage holders, and some minor forms of socialism are ok. I'm really not sure where or how this developed; while that element has been here since the beginning, it seems to have taken on new vibrance in the past couple of months.


Who cares?  We sacrificed American jobs and outsourced them to countries who pay slave wages.  And guess what, we can't even afford those cheap products on their slaved wages.  We have to borrow from them to keep the game going.  This is a one way flow of wealth outside of the US that has always bankrupted empires.  Free trade only works when wages of trading nations are close to each other.  Politicians are supposed to represent the US....not China.  

You can allow the market economy to function within it's own economic borders.  We had a better system going when we kept our tariffs high and left the rest of the world in mediocrity, which was their own fault anyway.  We imported their best and brightest and they set up shop in the US to become productive citizens adding to the superiority of the American economy.  Then, we eliminated all tariffs, and gave it all back. 

You do realize a currency peg is effectively the same thing as a tariff, don't you?

I'll lay it out in simple terms.  US Tariffs were bad for poor people in oppressive foreign nations.  Tariffs were good for the wealthy privileged class that was on top of the global economy (The United States).  On what planet did any reasonable person think it was good to give up that status?

----------


## Stary Hickory

> I'm starting to think some of you are masochists who believe in philosophy more than reality. 
> 
> Tariffs force us to patronize "inefficient" companies? So the definition of efficiency for you is a company which pays its employees next to nothing, under horrible conditions, in a country with a naturally lower standard of living than ours. 
> 
> Explain to me how our companies and workers can naturally "compete" with ones that house 20 workers in a tin shack with no sewage. No matter what our companies do here, they will never be able to match prices with the Chinese or Indians because the quality of life is different there. Then there's the currency issue. How is that any mark of shame against our companies?


Here you have broken out the simplistic imagery. Mean employers exploiting their workers, sweatshops in China....woe to the world. Please. Do you honestly think America would produce nothing even if every other country could do everything better? Honestly. Even if this was the case these countries would not simply give us these goods for free. That means that they would want us to do some of the production for things they consume. We must trade them something in return. In this sense it's no different from individuals who work in the economy. We all must do something in order to receive. What you are arguing for is the handicapping of the most efficient producers. This does no one any good. 





> 1. So what? I would gladly pay a little more for what I buy if it was keeping my countrymen employed. If a company I'm patronizing has goods made overseas, then aren't I only enriching the CEOs of that company with no other benefit to anyone else except that I can temporarily buy things at a theoretically lower price...while I still HAVE a job? I don't see screwing over tons of people so I can save on a shirt to be worth it. Here's another question: When production goes overseas, how much of the savings goes into retail price drops and how much goes into the CEO's pocket? 
> 
> 2. What exactly is it that we can produce to sell to China and India that they cannot do themselves much cheaper? What are the magic industries that will fill the giant gaping hole that outsourcing has left? Enlighten me. Also, there's that word "efficiently" again. I'm curious about that.
> 
> 
> There are quite a few tenets of libertarianism that I agree with, but after seeing the effects of globalization (aka race to the bottom) over so many years, it amazes me people are still not getting the scam. Each time a branch of manufacturing went overseas, the globalists reassured us it was for the best, and that we still had SECTOR X to hold onto. Then X went away too, and they pointed to Y...then Y went away, and they told us that we're a white collar services economy now, so it didn't matter. We were supposed to be all about information and computers. Then the tech jobs started going to India too. 
> 
> Do they have to outsource order taking at McDonalds before you realize what's really happening? Oh wait, they're experimenting with that now, if I remember correctly.
> 
> I'm thinking that efficiency shouldn't just be about making the largest number of widgets at the lowest cost. There are all kinds of horrible things you can do to make that bar graph go up. Slavery is really efficient. Tons of product. Your only cost is minimally feeding the slaves. You don't even have to do that if you have enough of them. There should be an equilibrium between that idea and providing a decent living standard for the people making the widgets. Are the hardcore objectivists cheering for Chinese standards of live in the US?


1) Well it seems you are stuck in a protectionist mentality and don't grasp how jobs are a result of people satisfying the wants and needs of others and themselves. You are arguing against change. When America opened these factories and jobs there was huge redirection of labor and capital. When machines replaced factory workers, workers lost their jobs. What did these people do? New types of business and services appeared because the new freed up labor and resources made previously unthinkable services affordable. 

There is no difference when more efficient producers start to export to us from overseas. We now have a more efficient means to acquire goods and services. If we cannot compete we must restructure and produce goods and services we excel at or those goods that other countries excel at less than others.


2) Your question is easily answered. Why would China give us goods for free? It's obvious that the Chinese would want goods and services in return. You do not have a sound grasp of economics imo. If the Chinese WERE giving us everything for next to nothing then where is the problem? Do you yell in anger because we have lumber abundantly available in the US? Or that air is free? Or that we have rivers and lakes from which to get fish? 

You seem to think that abundance and efficiency are things to be derided. You also have a simplistic notion that there are only X amount of jobs and services that can be engaged in. When in fact the number is not measurable. If Japan and China and the rest really are better factory workers than the US we would certainly do something in return for what they were producing. And that entails working and creating jobs. 

Free trade never decreases the economic position of anyone. It only encourages it. Inflation and government debt are the real culprits when we talk about unnatural job loss. But you don't see these as the problems. You seek to treat a symptom rather than the disease. Your method is to hinder free trade which will only make our problems much worse.

----------


## sratiug

> I think everyone here needs to listen to several of Walter Block's lectures on Free Trade:
> 
> http://mises.org/media/1897
> http://mises.org/media/1903
> 
> who really cares if China manipulates its currency or other countries subsidize their products? It just allows us to get other goods on the cheap; it gives us an advantage, not a disadvantage.
> 
> I'm really not sure what's happened to Ron Paul forums, but of late, it seems that protectionism, regulating banks, bailing out mortgage holders, and some minor forms of socialism are ok. I'm really not sure where or how this developed; while that element has been here since the beginning, it seems to have taken on new vibrance in the past couple of months.


Free trade starts at home.  You can't have free trade when everything in America is taxed and imports are not.  That is not free trade, that is subsidizing foreign imports at the expense of American production.

You cannot answer my earlier posts as to how tariffs are any more disruptive to free trade than internal taxes, because they are not.  In fact they are far far less disruptive.  Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff is the best choice.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Free trade starts at home.  You can't have free trade when everything in America is taxed and imports are not.  That is not free trade, that is subsidizing foreign imports at the expense of American production.
> 
> You cannot answer my earlier posts as to how tariffs are any more disruptive to free trade than internal taxes, because they are not.  In fact they are far far less disruptive.  Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff is the best choice.


 If you have internal taxation on other things though (primarily income), it's not subsidizing imports, as taxes on income hurt your purchasing power across the board. Heck, even sales taxes don't subsidize imports as they apply to imports themselves.

subsidizing imports would be giving that country foreign aid or setting up a program whereby foreign goods are immune to sales taxes. 

Imports on the other hand subsidize internal products because you don't pay the tariff, but you do pay the sales tax...on the other paw with foreign goods you'd have to pay the tariff _and_ the sales taxes. Not only this, but it'll also encourage internal producers to raise their prices, so it's a triple-whammy for tariffs, as opposed to a single-whammy with taxation.

Both tariffs and taxation are harmful to freedom, but tariffs are worse because they hinder imports, where as taxation does not have this effect.

----------


## Legend1104

> I'm starting to think some of you are masochists who believe in philosophy more than reality. 
> 
> Tariffs force us to patronize "inefficient" companies? So the definition of efficiency for you is a company which pays its employees next to nothing, under horrible conditions, in a country with a naturally lower standard of living than ours. 
> 
> Explain to me how our companies and workers can naturally "compete" with ones that house 20 workers in a tin shack with no sewage. No matter what our companies do here, they will never be able to match prices with the Chinese or Indians because the quality of life is different there. Then there's the currency issue. How is that any mark of shame against our companies?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So what? I would gladly pay a little more for what I buy if it was keeping my countrymen employed. If a company I'm patronizing has goods made overseas, then aren't I only enriching the CEOs of that company with no other benefit to anyone else except that I can temporarily buy things at a theoretically lower price...while I still HAVE a job? I don't see screwing over tons of people so I can save on a shirt to be worth it. Here's another question: When production goes overseas, how much of the savings goes into retail price drops and how much goes into the CEO's pocket? 
> ...


The problem with employers paying employees very little is that they have no incentive to gain better workers. In America during the industrial revolutionary era, floods of immigrants came to America looking for better jobs. With all of that labor available, employers were able to choose the best workers. In a place where they pay the bare minimum, they will only get the worst and poorest workers. All of the best workers will go elsewhere. Those companies that pay the best wages will get the best workers, make the best products, and will eventually be able to out-perform the company that continues to pay low wages.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> 2) Your question is easily answered. Why would China give us goods for free? It's obvious that the Chinese would want goods and services in return. You do not have a sound grasp of economics imo.


What new goods and services are we producing that China and India now consume in exchange for our missing industries? My understanding of the situation was that we were simply giving them dollars from our great new jobs as Wal-Mart greeters or french-fry handlers at McDonalds. They hold onto the dollars and then buy tangible goods from the rest of the world. Not products so much as gold, companies, buildings. My assumption was that eventually they will cancel our credit cards, tell us to F ourselves and be sitting pretty with all the gold and factories in the world, then just consume their own goods. Am I wrong about this process? I'm merely recollecting from news stories I remember reading over time.

And again... I think "efficiency" is almost a euphemism here. I've yet to hear anyone explain why the way China does things is positive apart from "woo! sale at Wal-Mart!".

----------


## Bossobass

Tariffs with reciprocity is fair trade.

Global WTO "Free Trade" is bull$#@!.

Most Favored Nation status (does anyone in America even know what that means???)
Currency manipulation, 
counterfeit products, 
government subsides, 
import quotas, 
raw materials export quotas 
and my favorite renamed tariff; VAT (19-30% tax on all imported goods to Euro zone and Asia zone customers).

Free trade, to the purist (or, those who suck the globalist propaganda gas pipe), is for the US to drop all tariffs, quotas, minimum standards, give huge tax subsides to companies that move out of the US and/or train competing countries in the state of the art, give up all recourse to the WTO and tack on no VAT while US goods makers face all of the above when exporting ANYWHERE else.

Anyone who makes the argument that such a situation is good for Americans should have a hole drilled in his head to let the stupid out.

Ohhh, goodie, I can buy a pair of tennis shoes for $5 less at Wal Mart while my company's export business takes a $#@! and the bank calls my loans and sells my life's work to China for pennies on the dollar at auction.

All hail FREE TRADE!

Bosso

----------


## sratiug

> If you have internal taxation on other things though (primarily income), it's not subsidizing imports, as taxes on income hurt your purchasing power across the board. Heck, even sales taxes don't subsidize imports as they apply to imports themselves.
> 
> subsidizing imports would be giving that country foreign aid or setting up a program whereby foreign goods are immune to sales taxes. 
> 
> Imports on the other hand subsidize internal products because you don't pay the tariff, but you do pay the sales tax...on the other paw with foreign goods you'd have to pay the tariff _and_ the sales taxes. Not only this, but it'll also encourage internal producers to raise their prices, so it's a triple-whammy for tariffs, as opposed to a single-whammy with taxation.
> 
> Both tariffs and taxation are harmful to freedom, but tariffs are worse because they hinder imports, where as taxation does not have this effect.


Taxes on income make the cost of American products much higher.  Sales taxes make American products higher because you have to pay an American worker enough to pay his sales taxes on everything he buys.  All of these taxes are paid by Americans, not foreigners.  All of these taxes impact American production far more than they ever could foreign producers and therefore are subsidizing foreign production.

It is total insanity to have a tax structure that benefits everyone else in the world but us.  Switching totally to a flat tariff makes for the free-est trade possible for Americans while paying the cost of government until such time the government can be endowed or voluntary or abolished.  

Again tariffs cannot possibly hurt imports any more than domestic taxation at the same amount hurts American producers.  The tariffs are still paid by Americans and still impact American producers and consumers but not in nearly so negative a fashion as internal taxes because they do not force all our jobs overseas.

----------


## Legend1104

Do not forget that tariffs also tend to cause American products to fail in markets abroad. If american businesses use tariffs to compete with foreign goods then they will not be competitive in foreign markets. Sure in America the tariff benefited price will be just fine, but tariffs will not help in foreign markets where the other foreign goods are still a better deal. In fact, tariffs will tend to insure that American goods will fail. Since they are propted up by the tariff at home, they will not see the need to be competitive and will not try to find ways to improve on their prices. So while tariffs will benefit at home, they will insure failure abroad.

----------


## theoakman

> Do not forget that tariffs also tend to cause American products to fail in markets abroad. If american businesses use tariffs to compete with foreign goods then they will not be competitive in foreign markets. Sure in America the tariff benefited price will be just fine, but tariffs will not help in foreign markets where the other foreign goods are still a better deal. In fact, tariffs will tend to insure that American goods will fail. Since they are propted up by the tariff at home, they will not see the need to be competitive and will not try to find ways to improve on their prices. So while tariffs will benefit at home, they will insure failure abroad.


You don't need to export to have a successful economy.  The export oriented growth model always fails.  The only real growth that is truly desirable is internal growth like that achieved by the US from 1800-1965.

----------


## Legend1104

> You don't need to export to have a successful economy.  The export oriented growth model always fails.  The only real growth that is truly desirable is internal growth like that achieved by the US from 1800-1965.


You misunderstand me. I am not trying to argue that tariffs are better than internal taxes or whatever you want to call it. I am trying to make the point that all forms of taxation are bad and harmful. Whether they are tariffs, income taxes, or sales taxes, all taxes should be looked at as evil and that need to be as minimal as possible. Too many people have this idea that the government has the right to run the economy. This idea leads people to think that the government can tax it's people to fulfill it's policies. This is wrong. The government has no part in the economy except to regulate for unsafe practices. I just do not want people to think that if we switch from internal taxes to tariffs, all of our problems will go away. In fact they will not because this line of thinking overlooks the real problem. It is not the form, it is the function.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> it does not hurt the United States ability to produce, if other countries can produce something cheaper.


Take a ride across the vast wasteland that was, at one time, an engine of production that stretched across a large swath of the United States.

And then look at the shattered remains of the blue collar families that used to make those goods.

And then re-think that.

A nation that produces nothing for itself will not, can not be, free and independent.

When we cannot even make the poison that we spike our water with anymore, there is a problem.

----------


## theoakman

> You misunderstand me. I am not trying to argue that tariffs are better than internal taxes or whatever you want to call it. I am trying to make the point that all forms of taxation are bad and harmful. Whether they are tariffs, income taxes, or sales taxes, all taxes should be looked at as evil and that need to be as minimal as possible. Too many people have this idea that the government has the right to run the economy. This idea leads people to think that the government can tax it's people to fulfill it's policies. This is wrong. The government has no part in the economy except to regulate for unsafe practices. I just do not want people to think that if we switch from internal taxes to tariffs, all of our problems will go away. In fact they will not because this line of thinking overlooks the real problem. It is not the form, it is the function.


I understood you perfectly.  Tariffs aren't evil.  They allow you to prevent another nation from pillaging all the wealth in your nation by employing labor at slave wages.

----------


## tmosley

> Take a ride across the vast wasteland that was, at one time, an engine of production that stretched across a large swath of the United States.
> 
> And then look at the shattered remains of the blue collar families that used to make those goods.
> 
> And then re-think that.
> 
> A nation that produces nothing for itself will not, can not be, free and independent.
> 
> When we cannot even make the poison that we spike our water with anymore, there is a problem.


The place you described did not become the way it was because labor elsewhere was cheaper.  It got that way because our government imposed taxes and regulations on those industries until they broke under the strain.  Even if we had a 1000% tariff on all imports from that time until now, Detroit would STILL be a wasteland.  The companies would have simply withered in place rather than trying to save themselves by fleeing.

----------


## tremendoustie

duplicate

----------


## tremendoustie

> Take a ride across the vast wasteland that was, at one time, an engine of production that stretched across a large swath of the United States.
> 
> And then look at the shattered remains of the blue collar families that used to make those goods.
> 
> And then re-think that.


This is caused by the shift to a phony economy, caused by the indebtedness acquired by governments, and incurred by artificially low interest rates, as well as by inflation. This is not due to free trade.

See the example I gave here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=235493&page=7




> A nation that produces nothing for itself will not, can not be, free and independent.


A nation cannot have a trade deficit without increasing indebtedness or ongoing inflation. Both of these are impossible without government distortion.

----------


## Legend1104

> I understood you perfectly.  Tariffs aren't evil.  They allow you to prevent another nation from pillaging all the wealth in your nation by employing labor at slave wages.


I have already addressed this "slave labor" notion and I wil not spend more time on how that idea is false, but I will say one thing. This notion that someone can undersell another because of using "slave labor" is to ignore economics. This is the same arguement that some use to justify minimum wage laws which are actually the major reason that other countries are able to undercut American wage rates and "steal" ou production.

----------


## theoakman

> I have already addressed this "slave labor" notion and I wil not spend more time on how that idea is false, but I will say one thing. This notion that someone can undersell another because of using "slave labor" is to ignore economics. This is the same arguement that some use to justify minimum wage laws which are actually the major reason that other countries are able to undercut American wage rates and "steal" ou production.


Rofl, don't compare minimum wage to the wages that were earned in China during the 80s and 90s.  A minimum wage worker in the US made 90% more than the average Chinese citizen.  Would you honestly work for 2000 dollars a year?  The people in China were poor and desperate.  They were willing to work for nothing.  The wages they earned were probably not even comparable to slave wages at the time we decided to drop our tariffs.  They were even lower.

----------


## tmosley

> Rofl, don't compare minimum wage to the wages that were earned in China during the 80s and 90s.  A minimum wage worker in the US made 90% more than the average Chinese citizen.  Would you honestly work for 2000 dollars a year?  The people in China were poor and desperate.  They were willing to work for nothing.  The wages they earned were probably not even comparable to slave wages at the time we decided to drop our tariffs.  They were even lower.


I would work for $2000 a year if the cost of living was $1000 per year.  Your grandparents did the same.  That is how industrial economies are built.  To call workers in an industrializing economy "slaves" is a gross mischaracterization.  The Chinese are not forced to work at gunpoint.  If they don't like life in urban factories, they can always return to the countryside from whence they came, just like urban workers in England could have returned to life in the fields three hundred years ago, and like United States workers could have returned to the countryside or their nations of origin two hundred years ago.

It's idiots like you who call the Industrial Revolution a time of great exploitation.  What you fail to understand is that industrialization is the process of ENDING exploitment.  Decrying that which created freedom will wind up destroying those same freedoms, and return the great majority of the people back into poverty.  This has been an ongoing process in this nation.  Without the efficiency that was introduced by the industrialism you hate so much, those "exploited" workers will starve.

I'd suggest you read this: http://mises.org/books/roots_of_capi...hamberlain.pdf

Please return with less ignorance.  Otherwise, provide evidence that most or all Chinese workers are slaves.

----------


## Legend1104

> Rofl, don't compare minimum wage to the wages that were earned in China during the 80s and 90s.  A minimum wage worker in the US made 90% more than the average Chinese citizen.  Would you honestly work for 2000 dollars a year?  The people in China were poor and desperate.  They were willing to work for nothing.  The wages they earned were probably not even comparable to slave wages at the time we decided to drop our tariffs.  They were even lower.


I do not mean to be rude but it is very obvious that you completely missed what I was saying. Either that, or you just did not read closely enough. I was not comparing our minimum wages to wages in China. Of course people in America made/make way more than China ("...made 90% more that the average Chinese citizen.."). I am not sure about your statistics, but that is exactly my point. I was TRYING to point out that because the minimum wage laws force employers to pay higher wages than the market would normally pay, the work force was shipped over seas to places that paid less, like China. How could you read what I wrote and misconstrue it to such an extent. Anyway, I had to clear that up.

----------


## sratiug

> ...
> I was TRYING to point out that because the minimum wage laws force employers to pay higher wages than the market would normally pay, the work force was shipped over seas to places that paid less, like China. How could you read what I wrote and misconstrue it to such an extent. Anyway, I had to clear that up.


Because all internal taxes raise the costs of American work and production without affecting the price of foreign goods, (the same as a minimum wage law, or regulations) our workforce is shipped overseas.  

Since Americans would still pay all the taxes if internal taxes were eliminated in favor of a flat tariff, and American producers and workers costs will still be increased by government regulations, replacing all internal taxes with a flat tariff balances the burden of taxation between American and foreign production in the most equitable fashion so as to distort our economy the least and have the least impact on free trade.

----------


## theoakman

> I do not mean to be rude but it is very obvious that you completely missed what I was saying. Either that, or you just did not read closely enough. I was not comparing our minimum wages to wages in China. Of course people in America made/make way more than China ("...made 90% more that the average Chinese citizen.."). I am not sure about your statistics, but that is exactly my point. I was TRYING to point out that because the minimum wage laws force employers to pay higher wages than the market would normally pay, the work force was shipped over seas to places that paid less, like China. How could you read what I wrote and misconstrue it to such an extent. Anyway, I had to clear that up.


Once again, I know exactly what you are saying.  You seem to be in favor of free trade with a nation of workers that in 1980 earned 90% less than the lowest wage earners in America.  I'm saying, that's insane.  The only possible result of such a policy is that our countries unskilled labor force all lost their manufacturing jobs.  A free market in global trade was the worst possible scenario for the American worker in 1980.  We had the market cornered.  Why should we have given that up?

----------


## theoakman

> I would work for $2000 a year if the cost of living was $1000 per year.  Your grandparents did the same.  That is how industrial economies are built.  To call workers in an industrializing economy "slaves" is a gross mischaracterization.  The Chinese are not forced to work at gunpoint.  If they don't like life in urban factories, they can always return to the countryside from whence they came, just like urban workers in England could have returned to life in the fields three hundred years ago, and like United States workers could have returned to the countryside or their nations of origin two hundred years ago.
> 
> It's idiots like you who call the Industrial Revolution a time of great exploitation.  What you fail to understand is that industrialization is the process of ENDING exploitment.  Decrying that which created freedom will wind up destroying those same freedoms, and return the great majority of the people back into poverty.  This has been an ongoing process in this nation.  Without the efficiency that was introduced by the industrialism you hate so much, those "exploited" workers will starve.
> 
> I'd suggest you read this: http://mises.org/books/roots_of_capi...hamberlain.pdf
> 
> Please return with less ignorance.  Otherwise, provide evidence that most or all Chinese workers are slaves.


Oh please.  The Chinese worker earned $2000 a year in 1980 and you want to talk about 1930 wages.  That would be the equivalent of your grandparents working for $40 a a year in 1930.  Actually, I didn't say anything about exploitation of workers in the industrial revolution.  So you can quit putting words and my mouth and quit acting like an $#@! by calling people names.  But since you brought it up, maybe you would be happy to explain to us *WHY DID WE HAVE SUCH A VIBRANT ECONOMY DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WHILE HAVING HIGH TARIFFS IN PLACE?*

 I know that free markets bring the best possible outcomes for the economy.  What you zealots can't seem to understand was that American had the entire market for manufacturing cornered in 1980 and we enjoyed the highest standard of living.  By removing our tariffs and letting the market economy on a global scale function, we guaranteed our demise.  Tell me, how in the hell was a free market in global trade in the best interest of a nation that literally enjoyed a monopoly on manufacturing?  

I've read all of Mises and Hayek and I am a huge supporter of the Austrian school.  However, in the case of free trade, what you and every other person fail to grasp is that despite the fact that free trade is good for the world and raises the standard of living of the world, it's at the expense of the rich worker.  America was rich in 1980.  Who did you care about more?  America or China?  We should have let them mire in mediocrity and poverty for another 200 years.

My grand parents were Chinese immigrants and fled that oppressive nation for this country.  China is a just a glorified mercantalist nation who abuses their citizens on a daily basis.  They just happen to be enjoying some economic success because they managed to suppress their citizens wages for 30 years straight without them complaining.

I'll put it in simple terms.  In general, tariffs are bad for your country.  But if you happen to be 10 times richer than every other country in the world, tariffs are good.

----------


## theoakman

> I have already addressed this "slave labor" notion and I wil not spend more time on how that idea is false, but I will say one thing. This notion that someone can undersell another because of using "slave labor" is to ignore economics. This is the same arguement that some use to justify minimum wage laws which are actually the major reason that other countries are able to undercut American wage rates and "steal" ou production.


They aren't slave labor.  They are just poor.  Would you be happier if I used that term.  Your solution seems to be an ending of minimum wage.  Fine, but without a tariff in place, jobs still flee the country or your unskilled labor would have had to take an 80% haircut.  How was this good for America in 1980?  No one seems to be able to rationally explain this.

----------


## tmosley

> Oh please.  The Chinese worker earned $2000 a year in 1980 and you want to talk about 1930 wages.  That would be the equivalent of your grandparents working for $40 a a year in 1930.  Actually, I didn't say anything about exploitation of workers in the industrial revolution.  So you can quit putting words and my mouth and quit acting like an $#@! by calling people names.  But since you brought it up, maybe you would be happy to explain to us *WHY DID WE HAVE SUCH A VIBRANT ECONOMY DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WHILE HAVING HIGH TARIFFS IN PLACE?*
> 
>  I know that free markets bring the best possible outcomes for the economy.  What you zealots can't seem to understand was that American had the entire market for manufacturing cornered in 1980 and we enjoyed the highest standard of living.  By removing our tariffs and letting the market economy on a global scale function, we guaranteed our demise.  Tell me, how in the hell was a free market in global trade in the best interest of a nation that literally enjoyed a monopoly on manufacturing?  
> 
> I've read all of Mises and Hayek and I am a huge supporter of the Austrian school.  However, in the case of free trade, what you and every other person fail to grasp is that despite the fact that free trade is good for the world and raises the standard of living of the world, it's at the expense of the rich worker.  America was rich in 1980.  Who did you care about more?  America or China?  We should have let them mire in mediocrity and poverty for another 200 years.
> 
> My grand parents were Chinese immigrants and fled that oppressive nation for this country.  China is a just a glorified mercantalist nation who abuses their citizens on a daily basis.  They just happen to be enjoying some economic success because they managed to suppress their citizens wages for 30 years straight without them complaining.
> 
> I'll put it in simple terms.  In general, tariffs are bad for your country.  But if you happen to be 10 times richer than every other country in the world, tariffs are good.


Zero sum economics went the way of the dodo 200 years ago.  Next you'll be telling us that bloodletting is the best treatment for cancer.  Maybe we should be sacrificing virgins to the economy gods?

America prospered during the industrial revolution IN SPITE OF high tariffs.  We had no income taxes, and very close to zero regulations.  If we hadn't had high tariffs, we would have had access to a wider variety of goods from around the world, and greater specialization both here and abroad, which always results in EVERYONE becoming richer.

Your grandparents fled a radically different country than exists today.  This comparison is like talking to the descendants of a family of serfs who fled England just prior to the industrial revolution.  A hundred years later, things were a LOT better in England FOR EVERYONE.  The Chinese are not slaves, not any more than workers were during the Industrial Revolution.  This IS IN FACT 100% relevant to what you are talking about, because China is going through an industrial Revolution right now.  To call their workers slaves is an insult to those who brought our own nation out of poverty 200 years ago, and it's an insult to free market economics. You don't know what you are talking about.

READ THE DAMN STICKY.  You are seriously lacking in education.  If you have read Hayak and Rothbard, you didn't understand them.  I would suggest you keep to the comic book level for now.

----------


## sratiug

> ...
> America prospered during the industrial revolution IN SPITE OF high tariffs.  We had no income taxes, and very close to zero regulations.  If we hadn't had high tariffs, we would have had access to a wider variety of goods from around the world, and greater specialization both here and abroad, which always results in EVERYONE becoming richer.
> 
> ...


We didn't need internal taxes because we used a tariff.  We should do the same today, eliminate internal taxes and replace them with a tariff that is flat by constitutional amendment.  A tariff does not interfere with free trade any more than internal taxes, in fact it does it to a lesser degree because the ones paying the taxes are the Americans either way.  Paying a tax to support the offshoring of your own jobs is plain stupid.  Paying the same tax in a way that does not support outsourcing of American jobs is much more logical.

----------


## theoakman

> America prospered during the industrial revolution IN SPITE OF high tariffs.  We had no income taxes, and very close to zero regulations.


So you agree, low taxes, zero regulations, and insanely high tariffs do allow us to become the most prosperous nation on the planet.  Thanks.  

A tariff still allows the market economy to function domestically and your economy can still achieve spectacular growth internal based on its own internal production.  

Now Free Trade with a country like Canada, makes perfect sense.  They have a high standard of living and some very useful commodities and technologies that we want access to.  We don't outsource jobs to Canada.  We truly do trade with them.  

A country like China brought absolutely zero to the table outside of cheap labor.  They don't manufacture anything that we didn't do a better job on ourselves.  They don't want any of our products.  In fact, they just counterfeit every technology we make rather than actually purchasing it from us.  We had a better system going when they were poverty stricken and we simply imported their best and brightest citizens to become productive workers in our own economy.  





> If we hadn't had high tariffs, we would have had access to a wider variety of goods from around the world, and greater specialization both here and abroad, which always results in EVERYONE becoming richer.


Please inform me as to how we benefited at all from trading with China.  They produce no new technology at all.  They manufacture consumer goods that are pathetic in terms of the quality and durability of the goods we manufactured domestically 50 years ago.  We actually end up paying more despite the fact that they cost less because we have to replace them so often.





> Your grandparents fled a radically different country than exists today.  This comparison is like talking to the descendants of a family of serfs who fled England just prior to the industrial revolution.


China is still a ridiculously oppressive nation.  Don't mistake the fact that their markets are relatively unregulated with the idea that they have freedom.  Capitalism can exist without freedom.  Freedom cannot exist without capitalism.




> A hundred years later, things were a LOT better in England FOR EVERYONE.  The Chinese are not slaves, not any more than workers were during the Industrial Revolution.  This IS IN FACT 100% relevant to what you are talking about, because China is going through an industrial Revolution right now.  To call their workers slaves is an insult to those who brought our own nation out of poverty 200 years ago, and it's an insult to free market economics. You don't know what you are talking about.


Once again, I didn't say they were slaves.  I said they got paid slave wages from the perspective of the American worker.   Key word being 'wages'.  It is possible to not be a slave and still get paid the same wage a slave would.  The Chinese worker earned a ridiculously low wage in 1980 and we should have required them to raise the standard of living of their citizens to a respectable level before we ever decide to lower tariffs.  The same goes for Mexico.  




> READ THE DAMN STICKY.  You are seriously lacking in education.  If you have read Hayak and Rothbard, you didn't understand them.


I understand Hayek and Rothbard completely.  The difference between you and me is, I don't blindly follow 100% of their writings.  Neither should you.  I already conceded that a free market results in the greatest possible outcome for the global economy.  What you don't seem to understand is that the countries that dominated the market lose market share to emerging nations as a result.  I dare you to find a single episode in history where this hasn't happened.  America was the most prosperous nation in the world while enforcing 200 years of strict tariffs.  As soon as they abandoned those tariffs, it all went down the toilet.  *Free markets do work.*  My question to you is, if you know that free markets work, why would you ever want to allow outside competition in when you are already in 1st place?  America was in 1st place in 1980.  We won the marathon by a mile.  Was there a legitimate reason to ever give the rest of the world a chance?  *From the standpoint of the health of the US, absolutely not. * 

You will never have a free market in global trade.  We don't even have a free market with interstate commerce right now in our own country.  You cannot stop foreign countries from subsidizing their own export industries, pegging their currencies, or creating tariffs of their own.  By instituting tariffs domestically, it allows you to prevent a one way flow of wealth out of your country for other nations that choose to undermine a free market in global trade.  Tariffs work and the rest of the world institutes their own protectionist measures to prevent wealth from escaping their country.  Those that don't are the ones that are going bankrupt right now.

As for my lack in education, I have a BS, MS, and PhD in Chemistry.  I also have a BS in Geological Sciences. 





> I would suggest you keep to the comic book level for now.


You are the one who resorts to character assassination rather than arguing.  That's usually the sign of someone who can't win an argument.

----------


## Legend1104

> So you agree, low taxes, zero regulations, and insanely high tariffs do allow us to become the most prosperous nation on the planet.  Thanks.  
> 
> A tariff still allows the market economy to function domestically and your economy can still achieve spectacular growth internal based on its own internal production.  
> 
> Now Free Trade with a country like Canada, makes perfect sense.  They have a high standard of living and some very useful commodities and technologies that we want access to.  We don't outsource jobs to Canada.  We truly do trade with them.  
> 
> A country like China brought absolutely zero to the table outside of cheap labor.  They don't manufacture anything that we didn't do a better job on ourselves.  They don't want any of our products.  In fact, they just counterfeit every technology we make rather than actually purchasing it from us.  We had a better system going when they were poverty stricken and we simply imported their best and brightest citizens to become productive workers in our own economy.  
> 
> 
> ...


I would bring up a mention of England during the Industrial Revolution as a good example of an opposing point. They were on the top of the world. They were the only industrialized nation in the world. They actually made concerted efforts to keep their technology out of the hands of other countries. Yet, Samuel Slater helped to bring the ideas to America that sparked our revolution. Now jump ahead to today and you can see that even though England is not on the top of the world, they are in a far better position than they were 200 years ago.

It is funny that you bring up the point about what does one nation that is on the top benefit from a nation that has nothing to give. I have began reading a book about patents and their harm to the free market. The reason I bring it up is this. If country A is the most advanced in the world, and has free trade with country B, which has virtually nothing to trade, then one benefit is as follows. If someone in country B invents a new idea on how to improve on something then country A can adapt that and increase their profits. For example. Let us say that Country A produces cars. Let us say that they open trade to country B that has never tried to build cars. Let us say that country B then invents a new way to produce cheaper cars. Country A can then implement this idea. The more access you have to the market to all groups of people, the more opportunity you have for innovation. In America, after the beginning of our industrial revolution, a multitude of new inventions were created that helped both America and England to increase profits, standards of living, and access to goods. As a matter of fact, you may find that country B is more suited to produce cars than Country A. A basic law in economics is specialization. If you have two employees working for you and one is very skilled in both cleaning floors and running the register, while the other can clean the floor but not as good as the first person and cannot run the register, then it is best to let him clean the floor. Then have the first employee only run the register. Even though the second employee cannot clean the floor as good as the first employee, with both of them specializing, the overall output is much better. America does not have to be the best at everything. As a matter of fact by allowing America to allocate resorces into fewer sectors, we can be more efficient. We should not waste labor on something that someone else can do better. 

Bye the way, I agree that we must remain civil. I hope that I do not come across as anything else.

----------

