Against Free Trade

Let's all cheer on senile Joe, who hasn't only waived environmental laws to resume building "the" wall (I can vaguely remember the time that there was a Berlin wall by the superbad commies to keep the baddies inside instead of out), but...

Biden has also continued many of the awesome import tariffs imposed during Trump’s reign, but made some bilateral agreements to cancel tariffs for some countries.

As predicted the tariffs had mostly negative impacts on American consumers and companies (except for the lucky few).
Trump-Man-of-steel
 
Let's all cheer on senile Joe, who hasn't only waived environmental laws to resume building "the" wall (I can vaguely remember the time that there was a Berlin wall by the superbad commies to keep the baddies inside instead of out), but...

Biden has also continued many of the awesome import tariffs imposed during Trump’s reign, but made some bilateral agreements to cancel tariffs for some countries.

As predicted the tariffs had mostly negative impacts on American consumers and companies (except for the lucky few).
Trump-Man-of-steel
Biden has no choice but to continue some of Trump's policies to avoid total collapse.
And those tariffs had beneficial effects on the economy and the benefits will only grow with time as they are maintained and expanded.
Free Traders have no qualms about the short term destruction their policies bring (without any long term benefits, but they claim there are) but suddenly care about short term drawbacks for some while economy adjusts to regrowing its own production muscles and paying the working class fair wages instead of undercutting it with slave labor.
Change is always disruptive, but production is wealth, liberty, and independence.
 
Biden has no choice but to continue some of Trump's policies to avoid total collapse.
Sort of like warp speed Donald having no choice but to fill his administration with "the swamp", starting a brutal lockdown, and forcing the CDC to emergency approve the clot shots?!?

.
And those tariffs had beneficial effects on the economy and the benefits will only grow with time as they are maintained and expanded.
Free Traders have no qualms about the short term destruction their policies bring (without any long term benefits, but they claim there are) but suddenly care about short term drawbacks for some while economy adjusts to regrowing its own production muscles and paying the working class fair wages instead of undercutting it with slave labor.
It's hard for a simple guy like me to predict the long-term effects. My wild guess is that this is a first step towards taxpayers funded export subsidies (that will probably first be introduced by a Democrat president).

I think that there is no doubt that the short-term effects of the tariffs were mostly negative (except for the lucky few).
American buyers and exporters of goods for which steel and aluminium were used, paid the price for the tariffs.
Following the tariffs on Chinese goods, prices of U.S. intermediate goods rose by 10% to 30%, about the rate of the tariffs.

By December 2018, Trump's tariffs resulted in a reduction in aggregate US real income of $1.4 billion per month, and on top of that cost US consumers $3.2 billion per month in added tax. The study's authors noted that the real costs from the tariffs were even higher, because they did not take all the negative impacts into account.

In 2019, Federal Reserve Board economists found that the steel tariffs led to 0.6% fewer jobs in the manufacturing sector because of the tariffs; or approximately 75,000 jobs.
General Motors cut over 14,000 jobs in plants in Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario, because of the steel tariffs.

In October 2019, it was estimated that US consumers and firms who buy imports lost $51 billion (0.27% of GDP) as a result of the 2018 tariffs, an aggregate US real income loss of $7.2 billion (0.04% of GDP).
Interestingly it were especially workers in predominantly Republican counties that suffered most from the trade war, because retaliatory tariffs focused on agricultural products. This reportedly also cost Republican politicians votes
Trump-Man-of-steel
 
ec9ae486a1d66ad804c45e669579769b99-09-dome-simpsons.h375.w560.jpg


Just go buy yourself an old phone booth. We'd all be happy to hermetically seal you inside.

It's too late now but if the US had hermetically sealed off the US from 99.99% of trade back in the 60's, our economy, industrial, and technological progress, would be decades ahead of where we are now.

Instead, the US economy has been stagnating for decades, and we've been subsidizing the rest of the world to catch up to us (or even surpass) us economically.

Free trade isn't idiotic by default but it's pretty goddamn stupid to basically sell off the family business in exchange for plastic lawn chairs and buckets of purple dildos. No rational individual would do it, and yet that's exactly what we did as a nation.
 
Some people will stick to their dogma's and hide behind appeals to authority in spite of all logic and evidence against their position.

Previously, I have provided a logical proof that tariffs have the ability to be beneficial to a nation. (Here)

The only logical counter provided so far is that tariffs have a cost in terms of bureaucracy and corruption. Which, to be fair, is the strongest argument against tariffs that I've heard.

These costs could in theory be minimized with a flat tax (or outright trade ban), but of course, such a thing would be unlikely be passed, because if there is no corruption, and no benefit to the people in power, there is no reason for it to be passed.
 
Previously, I have provided a logical proof that tariffs have the ability to be beneficial to a nation. (Here)

The only logical counter provided so far is that tariffs have a cost in terms of bureaucracy and corruption. Which, to be fair, is the strongest argument against tariffs that I've heard.

These costs could in theory be minimized with a flat tax (or outright trade ban), but of course, such a thing would be unlikely be passed, because if there is no corruption, and no benefit to the people in power, there is no reason for it to be passed.

And that's true of all taxes. (some taxes are necessary because some limited government is necessary)
Better to have bureaucracy interfere with foreign trade than with internal commerce and economics.
 
It's too late now but if the US had hermetically sealed off the US from 99.99% of trade back in the 60's, our economy, industrial, and technological progress, would be decades ahead of where we are now.

Instead, the US economy has been stagnating for decades, and we've been subsidizing the rest of the world to catch up to us (or even surpass) us economically.

Free trade isn't idiotic by default but it's pretty goddamn stupid to basically sell off the family business in exchange for plastic lawn chairs and buckets of purple dildos. No rational individual would do it, and yet that's exactly what we did as a nation.

Same with immigration, which is just the human trafficking trade for the corporate class.
 
Gee. I wonder why they're so poor.



All of a sudden no tariffs and foreign dumping are bad now?
Every time I try to say that I'm am repeatedly told that they are nothing but good, didn't Clinton gift them a bunch of cheap food?
They should have become richer than ever with that giant injection of wealth into their economy, right?
 
All of a sudden no tariffs and foreign dumping are bad now?
Every time I try to say that I'm am repeatedly told that they are nothing but good, didn't Clinton gift them a bunch of cheap food?
They should have become richer than ever with that giant injection of wealth into their economy, right?

I've never said anything Bill Clinton did was "good" and I'm hard pressed to think of anything. Nor have I taken a position that "no tariffs and foreing dumping" are not "bad." And government subsidized "dumping" isn't free trade. If Arkansas rice farmers wanted to actually exchange their rice for Haitian goods without being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers that would have been a win/win. Maybe some Arkansas farmers could have arranged for expert mining operations to go to Haiti. Who knows?

I'm surprised you're defending Bill Clinton when even Donald Trump attacked the Clintons over Haiti back in 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/12/donald-trump-discovers-haiti/
 
I've never said anything Bill Clinton did was "good" and I'm hard pressed to think of anything. Nor have I taken a position that "no tariffs and foreing dumping" are not "bad." And government subsidized "dumping" isn't free trade. If Arkansas rice farmers wanted to actually exchange their rice for Haitian goods without being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers that would have been a win/win. Maybe some Arkansas farmers could have arranged for expert mining operations to go to Haiti. Who knows?

I'm surprised you're defending Bill Clinton when even Donald Trump attacked the Clintons over Haiti back in 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/12/donald-trump-discovers-haiti/

Your reading comprehension doesn't exist.
I'm in favor of tariffs and pointing out that getting rid of them in favor of cheap foreign food was destructive.
 
Your reading comprehension doesn't exist.
I'm in favor of tariffs and pointing out that getting rid of them in favor of cheap foreign food was destructive.

LOL. So logic circuits are broken as hell. I talk about what Bill Clinton did wrong, you respond to me with saying "All of a sudden no tarriffs and foreign dumping are bad now?" and somehow you come back and pretend my "reading comprehension doesn't exist" when I point out to your lying butt that I've never argued that no tarriffs and foreign dumping are bad? GTFO with that nonsense! You made a straw man argument. I never said you weren't in favor of tariffs just like I never said I was against them.

Edit: And for the record I didn't even initally post in this thread. You copied my attack on Bill Clinton's trade policy with respect to Haiti over to this thread for reasons only you can fathom.
 
LOL. So logic circuits are broken as hell. I talk about what Bill Clinton did wrong, you respond to me with saying "All of a sudden no tarriffs and foreign dumping are bad now?" and somehow you come back and pretend my "reading comprehension doesn't exist" when I point out to your lying butt that I've never argued that no tarriffs and foreign dumping are bad? GTFO with that nonsense! You made a straw man argument. I never said you weren't in favor of tariffs just like I never said I was against them.

Edit: And for the record I didn't even initally post in this thread. You copied my attack on Bill Clinton's trade policy with respect to Haiti over to this thread for reasons only you can fathom.
A search has informed me that my memory was wrong and that you have not opposed tariffs on dogmatic free trade grounds.
I'll admit being mistaken about that and give you credit for it.

However, many of the people agreeing with you about what happened with Clinton and Haiti have vehemently opposed tariffs and promoted free trade arguments claiming that foreign countries dumping and destroying our industries is actually a gift to us, so I stand by my use of your post to make my point to them.
 
A search has informed me that my memory was wrong and that you have not opposed tariffs on dogmatic free trade grounds.
I'll admit being mistaken about that and give you credit for it.

However, many of the people agreeing with you about what happened with Clinton and Haiti have vehemently opposed tariffs and promoted free trade arguments claiming that foreign countries dumping and destroying our industries is actually a gift to us, so I stand by my use of your post to make my point to them.

Fair enough. I am a free trade agnostic. I think it's a great idea in theory but I'm totally against NAFTA, GATT and pretty much every other free trade "deal" that's been proposed in my lifetime. Even when I voted for Bill Clinton, something about NAFTA didn't sit right with me. If I had to do it all over again I would have voted for Ross Perot.
 
A Timely Reminder on Tariffs

This is a repeat of a 2018 post that is itself a rehash from a paragraph of my 2009 book entitled The Return of the Great Depression. And contra Martin Armstrong and everyone else who is pontificating about how Trump’s proposed tariffs would “destroy the global economy”, it’s just not true, at least not on the historical comparison to which most of them are appealing.

Every single talking head who makes any reference whatsoever to Smoot-Hawley is a poser and a fraud who knows nothing about economics or economic history. This is basically a variant of the “Um, Ricardo?” pseudo-rebuttal to an argument for tariffs or other forms of protectionism. It is proof that the speaker has heard about the subject, but doesn’t actually know the subject at all.

The point is so trivial that I dealt with it in a single paragraph in The Return of the Great Depression ten 16 years ago and haven’t seen the need to mention it again since until now.

For many years, it was supposed that the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 played a major role in the economic contraction of the Great Depression. As more economists are gradually coming to realize, this was unlikely to have been the case for several reasons. First, the 15.5 percent annual decline in exports from 1929 to 1933 was less precipitous than the pre-tariff 18.3 percent decline from 1920 to 1922. Second, because the amount of imports also fell, the net effect of the $328 million reduction in the balance of trade on the economy amounted to only 0.3 percent of 1929 GDP. Third, the balance of trade turned negative and by 1940 had increased to nearly ten times the size of the 1929 positive balance while the economy was growing.

There was nowhere nearly enough international trade taking place at the time to cause or account for the Great Depression. Whoever originally came up with that idea didn’t know what they were talking about and didn’t understand economics. And neither does anyone who still takes the ridiculous idea seriously.

The reason the Great Depression happened was the same reason that the financial crisis of 2008 happened. Everyone was overleveraged and the total amount of money being borrowed collapsed. That is why an average of 1,287 banks failed every year from 1930 to 1933. The historical credit collapse had vastly more impact on the economy than a smaller annual decline in exports than had been experienced seven years before as a result of the Fordney–McCumber tariff act.

The only way Trump’s proposed tariffs can “collapse the global economy” is if the resulting shift in purchasing preferences toward domestic producers results in the collapse of overleveraged corporations and banks that will no longer be able to service their debts in countries that have a trade surplus with the USA. But that’s going to happen anyhow. What 100-percent tariffs really mean is that global producers will have a serious incentive to produce goods in the USA instead of manufacturing them elsewhere and shipping them into the USA; it would definitely alter the relevant math on leather book production, just to give one example.

https://voxday.net/2024/12/02/a-timely-reminder-on-tariffs/
 
Back
Top