We don't have a free market and we don't play by free market rules, but anyone who wants to try and change things for the better has to play by free market rules. Got it.
Disclosing Tariff Impacts: A Hostile and Political Act
- Thread starter Voluntarist
- Start date
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,617
True. We don't have a free market. And all the things we have that violate the free market, including tariffs, are bad. They make things worse, not better.
So you want us to play by the rules that the opposition ignores. No wonder why we have been losing for over a century.
Complete loser mentality. Were you taught to rollover and play dead when a bully punches you in the face? Because fighting back is wrong?
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 77,176
Tariffs have a history. A long one. Free trade has a history too. A longer one. History proves countries who don't play the punitive tariff game benefit. Simple.
And we haven't hardly been losing for over a century. We've only been losing since we overregulated what Americans can buy, because that makes our home market products so idiotproof and lame that the rest of the world sneers at what we're allowed to have. Over a hundred years means the Roaring Twenties included, and we were anything but losers in the 1920s.
Our problem is that the only thing the postwar government has even been interested in exporting is weaponry. That has been the mindset behind every obnoxious little regulation passed.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 77,176
No, but we could stand to figure out when what they're doing hurts them more than it hurts us. If someone punched you in the belt buckle and broke their hand in six places, would you insist on doing it to them?
When we think about tariffs, it's wise to consider man's affection for the dog. Great benefits are anticipated at the outset. Few concretely appear.
I've got no beef with tariffs, to a point. If you're going to tax someone, why not the ones least interested in buying American? But this dream of funding the splendid little wars of the empire on tariffs, if Trump even tries it, is going to be nothing but an object lesson in the Law of Diminishing Returns.
Last edited:
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,965
[snip]
The same is true of currency interventions. The United States has complained for some time that China intervenes in its own currency markets to hold down the value of the yuan in order to increase export sales. The US position wrongly claims that it is harmed because domestic companies lose sales to cheaper Chinese goods. But this is wrong. Viewed from the standpoint of justice, domestic companies do not have an entitlement to domestic sales. And viewed from a practical standpoint, America enjoys an outright subsidy from China. China sells the United States goods below cost and causes its own citizens to suffer higher prices; that is, higher Chinese domestic prices are caused by its currency intervention that gives American importers more yuan than the free-market rate, which is based on purchasing-power parity. As I explained in a previous essay, currency interventions to spur exports are paid by the exporting country’s own citizens in the form of higher domestic prices. Should America foolishly prohibit the importation of Chinese goods, either by quotas or tariffs, it would cause harm only to its own citizens, who would be forced to pay higher prices, in addition to other economic dislocations.
Conclusion
The only international economic policy that a country needs is to mind its own business and set a good example to the rest of the world. A just economic policy for a free and prosperous nation would be based on the twin pillars of unilateral free trade and nonintervention into its own markets. This means a complete elimination of domestic regulations that attempt to set quality and safety standards (for the market will do that by itself) and complete abdication of manufacture and management of money.It does not need to join a trade bloc or negotiate trade terms with other nations. If a trade bloc such as the EU sets import standards different from one’s own domestic standards, each exporting company can decide for itself if the rewards for meeting the importing bloc’s standards warrant the extra cost. It is not an issue for the exporting nation’s government to decide. Furthermore, the exporting nation does not have to concern itself about importing from a country or bloc of countries that refuses to accept the exporting nation’s goods in return. After purchasing goods from the protectionist nation or bloc of nations, that nation’s currency will find its way back into its economy in the form of export demand from some other nation that accepted the currency in payment for some other good or service or it will receive a capital investment. If the currency never finds its way back to the nation that adopted unilateral free trade and is held indefinitely in the coffers of some foreign bank or central bank, that nation has simply been on the receiving end of a gift. An analogy would be that of a friend or neighbor who sells you something and then never cashes your check.
Unilateral Free Trade | Mises Institute
The only international economic policy that a country needs is to mind its own business and set a good example to the rest of the world.
Ah, I see. So we adopt unliteral free trade, while other countries still practice protectionism and market distortions. That will still somehow make us wealthier without any sort of trade-off domestically. It's not like China will stop flooding our completely open market with cheap subsidized goods, thus further destroying our own industrial base and furthering the destruction of our national security.[snip]
The same is true of currency interventions. The United States has complained for some time that China intervenes in its own currency markets to hold down the value of the yuan in order to increase export sales. The US position wrongly claims that it is harmed because domestic companies lose sales to cheaper Chinese goods. But this is wrong. Viewed from the standpoint of justice, domestic companies do not have an entitlement to domestic sales. And viewed from a practical standpoint, America enjoys an outright subsidy from China. China sells the United States goods below cost and causes its own citizens to suffer higher prices; that is, higher Chinese domestic prices are caused by its currency intervention that gives American importers more yuan than the free-market rate, which is based on purchasing-power parity. As I explained in a previous essay, currency interventions to spur exports are paid by the exporting country’s own citizens in the form of higher domestic prices. Should America foolishly prohibit the importation of Chinese goods, either by quotas or tariffs, it would cause harm only to its own citizens, who would be forced to pay higher prices, in addition to other economic dislocations.
Conclusion
The only international economic policy that a country needs is to mind its own business and set a good example to the rest of the world. A just economic policy for a free and prosperous nation would be based on the twin pillars of unilateral free trade and nonintervention into its own markets. This means a complete elimination of domestic regulations that attempt to set quality and safety standards (for the market will do that by itself) and complete abdication of manufacture and management of money.
It does not need to join a trade bloc or negotiate trade terms with other nations. If a trade bloc such as the EU sets import standards different from one’s own domestic standards, each exporting company can decide for itself if the rewards for meeting the importing bloc’s standards warrant the extra cost. It is not an issue for the exporting nation’s government to decide. Furthermore, the exporting nation does not have to concern itself about importing from a country or bloc of countries that refuses to accept the exporting nation’s goods in return. After purchasing goods from the protectionist nation or bloc of nations, that nation’s currency will find its way back into its economy in the form of export demand from some other nation that accepted the currency in payment for some other good or service or it will receive a capital investment. If the currency never finds its way back to the nation that adopted unilateral free trade and is held indefinitely in the coffers of some foreign bank or central bank, that nation has simply been on the receiving end of a gift. An analogy would be that of a friend or neighbor who sells you something and then never cashes your check.
Unilateral Free Trade | Mises Institute
The only international economic policy that a country needs is to mind its own business and set a good example to the rest of the world.mises.org
Whether you like it or not, trade agreements are the only way to lower other countries' protectionist policies. And there is no way you are convincing them to drop every protectionist policy entirely. Only in libertarian fantasy land utopia will that happen.
Again, this is a losing strategy. This is why libertarians have never won and never will. They insist on playing by the rules, while getting decimated by everyone else who doesn't.
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,965
I so wish Amerikans would stop voting. Then maybe I could live as a free and prosperous person without everybody forcing shit down my throat.
Good grief. And these are the same people who are so worried that foreigners might vote the wrong way
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,617
You have the wrong "us" and "them" in opposition. The real "us" is the American people, and the real "them" is the regime in Washington, DC.
I oppose the burdens that they (the regime) impose on us (the people). And the fact that other people living in other countries have to endure similar burdens placed on them by the regimes that rule their lands does not give me any reason to want the regime that rules over my land to do the same to me.
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,617
On the contrary. I am the one here who is fighting against the bully (i.e. the regime in Washington) who is punching us all in the face with tariffs.
It sounds like you're the one saying, "Thank you father, may I have another."
As the great Auron MacIntyre is fond of saying, the side that wants to win will always beat the side that just wants to be left alone.
Wishing a regime didn't exist is pointless. Aiming to negotiate the best outcome from the regime for me and my allies is what is to be done.
"The side that wants to win will always beat the side that wants to be left alone."I so wish Amerikans would stop voting. Then maybe I could live as a free and prosperous person without everybody forcing shit down my throat.
Good grief. And these are the same people who are so worried that foreigners might vote the wrong way
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,617
Lower tariffs is a better outcome than higher tariffs.
Only if there is reciprocity.
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,617
No. Regardless of reciprocity., Lower tariffs is always better.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,222
It wasn't a well thought out plan anyways.
Tarriffs are paid on the cost of the good when it's imported not the price of the item.
So if you know the tarrifs are on the cost of the item that seller pays then you can figure out the price the seller paid for it.
A 200% tarrif on a coffee mug from China that they are selling for 30 dollars could be 12 dollars because they only pay 6 dollars for it.
Now you know they are up charging you 500%.
Tarriffs are paid on the cost of the good when it's imported not the price of the item.
So if you know the tarrifs are on the cost of the item that seller pays then you can figure out the price the seller paid for it.
A 200% tarrif on a coffee mug from China that they are selling for 30 dollars could be 12 dollars because they only pay 6 dollars for it.
Now you know they are up charging you 500%.
Last edited:
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,965
The point is, it wouldn't be so bad if the people voting actually knew what they were voting for. I've lived under this system that you and yours have voted for all of my life, and, like communism, it will never work no matter how many times you try. In fact, it is communism, when all you do is spread my wealth, and transfer power on my behalf, to the federal government. Meaning: Yes, I categorize you and the democrats as the same. The only difference is you want different things.
We have to advocate for our trade by going to these other countries and getting them to lower their trade barriers and buy more of our goods. You can't do that from your loser position. Trade deficits literally cause the debt driven monetization system we have now. They take our dollars then have no use for them so they buy government debt.
This is why Trump won the Republican nomination and both Ron and Rand failed miserably.
Similar threads
