Do We Need To Bring Back Tariffs On Imports?

[Kade]

EDIT: no1butpaul, let's just ignore buttalokid777. hey, how do i ignore posts by certain obama supporters (i.e. kade, buttalokid777)? is it in the settings menu

Click on my name and under the menu you will see "ignore user".

For the record, again, I no longer support Obama.

 

[angelatc]

I think "free trade breeds prosperity" is a lie taught in liberal globalist schools or at best, an urban myth.

This was written by Pat Buchanan in 1994. There's an updated versio floating around some place but I can't find it.

Poor Smoot and Hawley. They get it every time. During the closing hours of GATT debate, their names were everywhere: Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, architects of that dreadful, ruinous tariff bill of 1931.

Smoot-Hawley, it was said, deepened -- if it did not cause -- the depression. Smoot-Hawley proved the folly of using tariffs to protect America. Smoot-Hawley made the case, forever, for free trade. GATT opponents were isolationists and protectionists in the Smoot-Hawley tradition. It was their forebears who made the world safe for fascism and laid the groundwork for WWII.

This is part and parcel of The Great Myth of the 20th century: That withdrawal of America's armies from Europe after World War I, our refusal to ratify the Versailles peace treaty and our isolationism and protectionism in the '20s and '30s, made the world safe for fascism, Hitler and World War II. We Americans bear responsibility for those horrors. We are guilty! Therefore, we owe mankind reparations and must never again shirk our duties to the world.

This myth is the greatest of the "Blame America First" slanders. It is endlessly exploited, here and abroad, by men whose dreams have always been to leech out America's reservoirs of blood and treasure for their own global ambitions.

But The Great Myth is a great lie

Fascism and Bolshevism -- Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler -- did not result from American isolationism. They were the results of European stupidity and bloody-minded idiot-interventionism. World War I, the monstrous bloodbath which destroyed four empires -- Russian, German, Austrian, and Ottoman -- and brought Lenin to power in 1917, was Europe's doing, not America's.

As for the Versailles treaty, which split a defeated Germany in Two and left millions of German-speaking peoples cut off from their homelands, isolated in France, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, that was the doing of British and French "statesmen." Woodrow Wilson may have gone along, but it was not he who scheduled WWII -- with the vindictive, wicked peace of WWI.

That the U.S. should have joined the League of Nations and used its power to police this squalid treaty is absurd. For Versailles did not rest on Wilson's "Fourteen Points," the principles of peace that had won Berlin's agreement to an armistice.

Versailles trampled all over them. It denied German-speaking peoples all over Europe the right of self-determination they had been promised if Germany and Austria laid down their arms. The only way the Western allies won German acceptance of their dictatorial, Carthaginian peace, was with a British-led Starvation Blockade of 1919, itself a moral atrocity and violation of Wilson's Fourteen Points.

Mussolini, the first of the fascists, came to power in 1922. (Perhaps Il Duce marched on Rome to protest the Fordney-McCumber tariff.) And perhaps Hitler's Munich Beer Hall putsch in 1923, where he tried to seize power in Bavaria, was pulled off in anticipation of Smoot-Hawley?

Dismemberment of Germany at Versailles, the imposition of impossible reparation demands, which post-Kaiser Germany was forced to accept, discredited Weimar democracy and created the misery and thirst for revenge -- not some U.S. tariff.

But didn't Smoot-Hawley cause the Depression? Again, myth. The 1929 collapse on Wall Street triggered the Great Depression. The failure of thousands of banks, wiping out a third of America's savings, caused the Depression to last until WWII, long after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs had been rolled back.

Americans today are being indoctrinated in false history. And high among the falsehoods is that "free trade" with foreign nations made America prosperous, and protectionism always made her poor. This is the catechism of the One Worlders, but it is politically correct history -- not truth.

All four presidents on Mt. Rushmore were protectionists. The greatest era of industrial expansion in America, where our workers saw the greatest rise in their standard of living was from 1860-1914, when America protected her industries and jobs behind a tariff wall. During that half century, U.S. exports rose 700 percent, while imports rose only 500 percent! By 1914, U.S. workers were earning 50 percent more that Brits, and more than twice what Germans and Frenchmen made.

No nation has ever risen to pre-eminence through free trade. Britain before 1848, America and Germany from 1865 to 1914, Japan from 1950 on, all practiced protectionism.

Now, the indices of national decline are all around us: endless huge trade deficits, falling wages, urban and social decay. But that decline will not be reversed until Americans cease to think of themselves as global citizens, with global duties, and start thinking again of their own country.

Smoot and Hawley aren't responsible for America's decline. Rather, it is those who make constant sport of them, and who need to be driven from power, if America is to reclaim the lost dream.

 

[Kludge]

Tariffs do nothing but artificially inflate the wages of those in the manufacturing industry.

We are hardly a manufacturing nation anymore, and tariffs no longer serve the numerical greater good and even if it did, it still is not acceptable by libertarian principles. The gov't has no right to tax producers, especially in such a discriminatory manner as tariffs.


Tariffs are a band-aid solution, usually used after gov't raises minimum wage (a tariff would likely temporarily preserve the value of their raise). A free market should not be limited to Americans (not that tariffs make our markets any more free). We need a globally free economy. Fuck America, I'm a humanitarian.

Short-term solutions are unacceptable. A completely free market is the ONLY solution to our problems. Monopolies ALWAYS fail when competition exists.

Even worse, the gov't will try to stop competition (immigration) because they KNOW our wages are inflated. This leads to utterly unfair immigration quotas that the numerical majority has no right to impose.

 

[krazy kaju]

Chineese company Chamco plans to produce trucks in Mexico.....that will be sold in the US starting 2010.......they will pay 0 tariff for each truck sold in our country.....

If GM or Ford wants to sell a truck in China.....GM or Ford must pay a 25% tariff to China......

If Americain companies have to pay a 25% tariff to sell vehicles in China.....

It is only fair China pays a 25% tariff to sell their vehicles here rather than using Nafta to subvert that by building their plant in Mexico......

We DO want a FREE market....DONT WE?

I agree that we don't have true free trade. The best way to have free trade would be to eliminate all of our tariffs and not enter into lengthy subsidizing so-called "free trade" agreements.

As for "fairness" of tariffs. If China wants to have a 25% tariff on our cars but we have a 0% tariff, that is good for us. With less competition driving vehicle costs up in China, they'll just have a lower rate of capital accumulation. When we're able to purchase their goods without an added tax, that just gives our consumers a wider choice and the ability to buy cheaper goods - which is always a good thing.

Only because a few auto workers get displaced in the process doesn't mean that tariffs should be used. Believe me, I live right next to Detroit, a very large portion of my family is in the auto industry in some way.

The fact of the matter is that cheaper goods are better for our economy. We pay less, which allows us to save and/or invest more, which speeds the growth rate of our economy. The workers who lose their jobs find other jobs where their work will be more productive and profitable. It's a win-win situation. Pay less and have higher economic growth.

Besides, instead of targeting tariffs, you should be targeting regulations, corporate taxes, union ass-kissing, and other government interventions which are making us extremely uncompetitive compared to foreign nations.

Import tarriffs are exercised by the importing country......

If GM or Ford want's to sell a vehicle that costs $20,000 to china GM must pay China $5000 (25%) FOR THE RIGHT TO SELL A VEHICLE THERE,,,,,,,because of IMPORT TARRIFFS

If China wants to sell a vehicle in the US they manufactured in their Mexico Plant.....China has to pay the US 0$

DO YOU GET IT YET?

Because they have tarrifs on us.....yet we dont have tarriffs on them...we are subsidizing them......they are NOT subsidizing us.....by exploiting loopholes in nafta,,,china is exploiting the USA's managed trade agreements......

So? We're getting cheaper goods because of it, which is a good thing for us.

Also, we're not subsidizing them in any way. Subsidizing would be our government paying them money to produce cars, which isn't happening. We're simply not levying idiotic taxes on them, which is a good thing.

Hey if they charge us a 25% tariff and we charge them 0% tariff....that is a double standard and that is NOT free trade.....that is managed trade......im all for free trade and when one side has a 25% advantage through legislation......that is NOT free trade.....free trade is selling product to each others country with 0% tariff and letting the market decide which product is best......we have no choice but to impose the same tarriff they impose on us if the market is to decide what the best value is

The only way free trade works is when ALL parties involved do NOT impose tarriffs.....

If one country has tarriffs while their trading partner does not........

THAT IS NOT FREE TRADE.........IT IS IMPERIALISM.........

How is it imperialism?

My god....what drugs are you doing? you make no sense....(atleast to people who understand the english language bejing boi)

Since you are mentally challenged.....

I find this entire passage very, very ironic.

So far I've seen no mention of the fact companies in the United States have to pay extra to build things here because of the Environmental Protection Administration making them buy various equipment to keep from polluting the environment. China does not have this problem nor do many countries we do business with.

Shouldn't we charge the difference at the border to make things equal?

If we can't compete because the government makes our companies pay extra to do business here, how do we expect our companies not to close and go where they are not required to pay that extra money?

The issue of "fairness" is very common. The correct way to go about things would be to disband the EPA, eliminate our capital gains and corporate income taxes, cut through regulatory red tape, etc.

Levying tariffs will just increase the costs for the average American consumer, which inevitably slows economic growth.

I think "free trade breeds prosperity" is a lie taught in liberal globalist schools or at best, an urban myth.

This was written by Pat Buchanan in 1994. There's an updated versio floating around some place but I can't find it.

Pat Buchanan is pretty good on most issues except immigration and trade. The fact of the matter is that comparative advantage benefits everyone.

Again, the reason the US is so rich is because we don't have trade barriers between our 50 very diverse states and even more diverse territories. Maine might have a comparative advantage in wood, so it makes wood cheaper for the rest of America, while Michigan might have a comparative advantage for cars, which makes cars cheaper for the rest of America, while California has a comparative advantage in computers, which makes computers cheaper for everyone.

In this way certain states have certain industries that are the most profitable in those states, and all states benefit since there are no trade barriers making things cost more.

Imagine if Texas, as large and glorious as it is, had to produce cars, oil, oranges, apples, wheat, barley, beer, grapes, wine, milk, cheese, beef, chicken, etc. all at once. The prices of all these goods would skyrocket and Texans, as a result, would be much cheaper. But since Texas can specialize in its comparative advantage like oil and, say, oranges, Texas can profit from much cheaper goods from Michigan, California, Maine, etc.

No or minimal trade barriers can only be beneficial for everyone.

 

[sratiug]

I think "free trade breeds prosperity" is a lie taught in liberal globalist schools or at best, an urban myth.

This was written by Pat Buchanan in 1994. There's an updated versio floating around some place but I can't find it.

+1000

We need a constitutional amendment to set a FLAT TARIFF across the board to pay ALL expenses of the federal government. It could be adjusted each year. Free traders can get rid of the tax by getting rid of all the expenses of the federal government. If the federal government had an endowment that earned enough interest would'nt that be theoretically possible? Lobbyists would have no job.

If everybody in your family was a dentist and you all lived together and paid the bills together but you went to the dentist across the street because he was 10% cheaper when you needed a filling that would make you a moron. Anyone can say that you will benefit eventually when that money comes back, but that would be just be lying, really wouldn't it? Not only should your family tax you more than the 10% difference, they should kick your ass for being stupid.

There is no better tax than the tariff. If you disagree, then WHAT IS IT?

 

[moostraks]

+1000

We need a constitutional amendment to set a FLAT TARIFF across the board to pay ALL expenses of the federal government. It could be adjusted each year. Free traders can get rid of the tax by getting rid of all the expenses of the federal government. If the federal government had an endowment that earned enough interest would'nt that be theoretically possible? Lobbyists would have no job.

If everybody in your family was a dentist and you all lived together and paid the bills together but you went to the dentist across the street because he was 10% cheaper when you needed a filling that would make you a moron. Anyone can say that you will benefit eventually when that money comes back, but that would be just be lying, really wouldn't it? Not only should your family tax you more than the 10% difference, they should kick your ass for being stupid.

There is no better tax than the tariff. If you disagree, then WHAT IS IT?

I like the way you think....

 

[angelatc]

I haven't seen anything but unproven theory debunking Buchanan's claims yet. China is the biggest example of why free trade doesn't work. The playing fields aren't equal!

Americans today are being indoctrinated in false history. And high among the falsehoods is that "free trade" with foreign nations made America prosperous, and protectionism always made her poor. This is the catechism of the One Worlders, but it is politically correct history -- not truth.

All four presidents on Mt. Rushmore were protectionists. The greatest era of industrial expansion in America, where our workers saw the greatest rise in their standard of living was from 1860-1914, when America protected her industries and jobs behind a tariff wall. During that half century, U.S. exports rose 700 percent, while imports rose only 500 percent! By 1914, U.S. workers were earning 50 percent more that Brits, and more than twice what Germans and Frenchmen made.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Fixed exchange rates between currencies are another form of tarrif. The Chinese Yuan is traded but only within a specified range which distorts trade in favor of China vis a vis the US. If this was not in place, the Yuan would fall against the dollar and make the cost of their exports to us to rise and increase their relative labor costs.

Free trade has good and bad. Production tends to go to where the labor is cheapest. That can put downward pressure on wages in the country with higher wages. But that also means that the goods coming into the country cost less than those produced domestically so you need less money to buy the same goods. We have lost some jobs to free trade but have been able to keep our inflation relatively low by constantly finding lower cost suppliers of goods. But we are starting to run out of places to move production to at lower rates. For a while it was Japan and then the Far East like Singapore. Now it is China. Africa has lower wages but also limited educational programs and thus a less trained work force. It will take investment in training programs and infrastucture if you wanted to shift production to Africa. They also have limited resources like water which most manufacturing requries.

 

[sratiug]

I like the way you think....

Do you think there is room on RPForums for a pro-tariff section if we all agree that all other federal taxes would be eliminated first and the tariff is flat by constitutional amendment? Or is there another place for us to express these views?

Someone posted a speech that was in the congressional record about tariffs, excises and billing the states for money by some congressionl historian or something that I can't find that was interesting on this subject.

 

[LT for the Truth]

Import tarriffs are exercised by the importing country......

If GM or Ford want's to sell a vehicle that costs $20,000 to china GM must pay China $5000 (25%) FOR THE RIGHT TO SELL A VEHICLE THERE,,,,,,,because of IMPORT TARRIFFS

If China wants to sell a vehicle in the US they manufactured in their Mexico Plant.....China has to pay the US 0$

DO YOU GET IT YET?

Because they have tarrifs on us.....yet we dont have tarriffs on them...we are subsidizing them......they are NOT subsidizing us.....by exploiting loopholes in nafta,,,china is exploiting the USA's managed trade agreements......

+1 I was born into the auto industry, worked in the auto industry. To make a long story short, tariffs are needed to allow a level playing field. I'm not trashing Detroit but it's nothing but a reflection of these policies. Sad to say, the rest of the nation will suffer the same fate if this is not changed. Lee Iaococca warned of this in the 80's

 

[Zippyjuan]

That is one of Ron Paul's proposals- to get rid of the income tax and replace it with tarrifs and excise taxes. These currently account for $97.3 billion dollars of government revenue or 3.6% of the 2.66 trilllion budgeted income for 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008 They would have to go up massively to do that- along with massive cuts in the size of government. That is about half of what we spend just on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan each year.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

China is OUR economic model?

Maybe you should change your username to....

Bejing Brian.....

Brian4Liberty just sounds....so NOT YOU........

LOL!

Ok, seriously, I need to put the sarcastic face in my posts more often.

As for China being our economic (and political) model, unfortunately, I believe it is true. Don't kill the messenger, I think it's terrible. In the US, we are turning workers into slaves (less pay, more hours), and turning the government into a totalitarian, big brother government. Sounds a bit like China? Oh yeah, the difference is that the common workers in China are experiencing an increasing standard of living, while we are decreasing in the US.

Some of the most prestigious Universities in America are now teaching American MBA students by showing Chinese companies as a model, and how the workers are controlled. Similar to what was done in the 80's when American Managers were taught the Japanese management models.

As far as uneven tariffs go, who wants to play on an even field? I prefer to play poker with all of my cards face up on the table!

 

[123tim]

"Dumping cheap goods"? What's wrong with that? It lowers our standard of living? WHy Because we pay less for goods?

Absolutely. If everything sold in this country comes from a factory or farm in China we will soon live as the Chinese do.

Our standard of living is a result of what we produce and how we market it. Our standard of living is getting lower by the day. If we produce nothing we have nothing.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

As for "fairness" of tariffs. If China wants to have a 25% tariff on our cars but we have a 0% tariff, that is good for us. With less competition driving vehicle costs up in China, they'll just have a lower rate of capital accumulation. When we're able to purchase their goods without an added tax, that just gives our consumers a wider choice and the ability to buy cheaper goods - which is always a good thing.

Only because a few auto workers get displaced in the process doesn't mean that tariffs should be used. Believe me, I live right next to Detroit, a very large portion of my family is in the auto industry in some way.

Ah, someone who would sell-out his family for a couple of cheap plastic trinkets. You have a great future in politics.

With less competition driving vehicle costs up in China, they'll just have a lower rate of capital accumulation.

Hmmm. So a trade imbalance in China's favor results in them accumulating less capital and helps the U.S.? Ok, you qualify for President.

 

[Kade]

Ah, someone who would sell-out his family for a couple of cheap plastic trinkets. You have a great future in politics.

ha.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

+1 I was born into the auto industry, worked in the auto industry. To make a long story short, tariffs are needed to allow a level playing field. I'm not trashing Detroit but it's nothing but a reflection of these policies. Sad to say, the rest of the nation will suffer the same fate if this is not changed. Lee Iaococca warned of this in the 80's

Again I ask, why should a subperforming industry be subsidized through a tariff, at the expense of the taxpayer/consumer and other industries?

I suggest anyone preaching this tariff policy to read, "Saving the X Industry" from Economics in One Lesson.

It is obvious in the case of a subsidy that the taxpayers must lose precisely as much as the X industry gains. It should be equally clear that, as a consequence, other industries must lose what the X industry gains. They must pay part of the taxes that are used to support the X industry. And customers, because they are taxed to support the X industry, will have that much less income left with which to buy other things. The result must be that other industries on the average must be smaller than otherwise in order that the X industry may be larger.

But the result of this subsidy is not merely that there has been a transfer of wealth or income, or that other industries have shrunk in the aggregate as much as the X industry has expanded. The result is also (and this is where the net loss comes in to the nation considered as a unit) that capital and labor are driven out of industries in which they are more efficiently employed to be diverted to an industry in which they are less efficiently employed. Less wealth is created. The average standard of living is lowered compared with what it would have been.

 

[Dr.3D]

Again I ask, why should a subperforming industry be subsidized through a tariff, at the expense of the taxpayer and other industries?

First one has to understand why that industry is sub performing.

This country requires industry to buy equipment and expend energy to keep the environment clean. Many other countries don't require these expenditures.

So is it fair our industry should have to bear the burden of those expenditures when the others don't have to?

In my opinion, those expenses should be balanced between the two countries in the form of tariffs. It isn't like our government is going to be able to convince the others to make their industry conform to the environmental mandates this country has placed on our industry.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

First one has to understand why that industry is sub performing.

This country requires industry to buy equipment and expend energy to keep the environment clean. Many other countries don't require these expenditures.

So is it fair our industry should have to bear the burden of those expenditures when the others don't have to?

In my opinion, those expenses should be balanced between the two countries in the form of tariffs. It isn't like our government is going to be able to convince the others to make their industry conform to the environmental mandates this country has placed on our industry.

What you are describing is a problem with regulation policy, not tariff policy. Excessive regulations are bad policy, as are tariffs. Why should we add to our bad regulation policy with bad tariff policy?

The American auto industry just isn't that good at producing cars, again, why should we subsidize that?

We should work towards ridding ourselves of these bad regulations, rather than add more bad policy through the form of tariffs.

Again, tariffs only help special interest (in this case the American auto industry) and Big government, at the expense of the taxpayers/consumers. Why support that?

 

[LibertyRevolution]

I am for import tariffs. I think that is the only way we can force the manufactures to come back to the USA. Want to end the unemployment, want to end the welfare, bring the fracking jobs back!

Imposing import tariffs seems a hell of a lot more doable than the government getting rid of minimum wage, allowing child labor, repealing the environmental protections, and removing the taxation of every step in the manufacturing process.

 

[Dr.3D]

What you are describing is a problem with regulation policy, not tariff policy. Excessive regulations are bad policy, as are tariffs. Why should we add to our bad regulation policy with bad tariff policy?

The American auto industry just isn't that good at producing cars, again, why should we subsidize that?

We should work towards ridding ourselves of these bad regulations, rather than add more bad policy through the form of tariffs.

Again, tariffs only help special interest (in this case the American auto industry) and Big government, at the expense of the taxpayers/consumers. Why support that?

So what you are saying is, let's send all of our manufactureing overseas so we can be a consumer country. Great, I guess there will really be a lot of poor people and consumers in this country then.

It isn't only the auto industry we are talking about here either. Any industry is at stake. Any industry that makes anything and suffers as a result of the controls imposed upon it by the environmental mandates is at stake.

Great, let's not manufacture anything here and let somebody else do all of the manufactureing so we can import all of it cheaply and let all of the poor people in this country buy that stuff. It's already pretty much that way now, so we might as well just do as we have been doing and nobody will have any kind of a manufacturing job in this country. All we will have is the little nickel and dime service jobs.

I guess you want to be one of the first in line at the burger joint, to see if you can get a job. Or perhaps changing somebodies oil is more your style. I can think of a lot of nickel and dime jobs you can stand in line for if that is how you want to play the game.