John Stossel: The Stupidity of "Buy American"

[low preference guy]

Tariffs between the States is prohibited by the Constitution.

way to miss the point.

 

[Anti Federalist]

@Anti Federalist

If trade with other countries is bad for America, why don't you also support tariffs between States? If America is better off without China, why isn't Texas better off without California?

And if (in your view) Texas is better off without California, why isn't Dallas better off without trade with Houston?

And if that is the case why isn't one neighborhood better off without trade with another?

And if that is the case why aren't we all better off just being farmers and growing our own food?

And if that is the best way of life, why are you moving to a poor country with subsistance farming?

Because all of those places, trade between states and towns within the United States has been, for most of our history, on an equal footing with one another, same tariffs, same tax structure, mostly, same torts and standards and environmental regulations.

Of course, that's now changing, California comes to mind that has been setting standards for itself now for years, and expecting everybody else to comply.

A state cannot unilaterally issue fiat currency, it cannot charge it's own tariffs because of the damage that could do to another state's economy. The Founders recognized that, and that was why they wrote that into the constitution.

Now, if one of our own states can't play fast and loose with the money, can't charge it's own tariffs willy nilly, can't refuse to comply with standards and regulations, in order to undercut another state's economy, why the hell should some foreign country be allowed to do so?

And I do try to do as much as I can for myself, and I do farm and support local farmers and buy local as much as I can.

And rest assured, living in a mud hut and subsisting on 500 calories a day of cold rice and rat meat is most assuredly our future, if the powers that be continue to sell out the middle class, gut the economy and persist in this globalized "free trade" nonsense.

 

[specsaregood]

A state cannot unilaterally issue fiat currency

That being the central reason.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Try this one:

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8880-free-trade-in-theory-and-practice

Almost all of those assumptions are completely compatible with Comparative Advantage, or are not relevant.

Transport costs, tariffs, and government manipulation would just create different advantages and disadvantages. There is no fixed number of jobs, making the unemployment problem irrelevant. Buyers and sellers can never have complete knowledge, not even in a local market. Commodities not all being exactly the same is more reason to do away with tariffs, as they take away choices. Prices are constantly fluctuating, and factors of production are constantly moving. It is natural and healthy for comparative advantages to shift around.

Now are you going to tell me what the difference between protectionism and the Candle Maker's Petition is?

 

[pcosmar]

way to miss the point.

Actually I was missing his missing the point.
But Point taken.

I am not against Free Trade. I AM very opposed to what is called free trade. (managed trade) (badly managed at that)

I do not like tariffs as Protectionist Trade Barriers, but would accept them as an income for a small and limited government in lieu of other forms of tax.

 

[low preference guy]

I do not like tariffs as Protectionist Trade Barriers, but would accept them as an income for a small and limited government in lieu of other forms of tax.

if the reason of the tariff is to fund the government, they're not protectionist trade barriers. protectionist tariffs are those imposed with the purpose of protecting industries even if the revenue collected is enough to fund the government.

EDIT: i think you knew this already. i misunderstood what "them" referred to.

 

[roughridersten]

I want to be clear: I am not trying to tell you how to act.

I am not trying to change your purchasing patterns. If you gain subjective value from purchasing local products and only buying goods that have "made in America" stickers on them, then by all means continue. That is what liberty and a free market is all about. However, if you are getting this subjective value because you believe those actions are making Americans more prosperous, I (and other Austrian economists) disagree. Even worse, if you use your beliefs about economics to restrict my choices in the market place (ie. tariffs, preventing trade, etc.) you are pursuing a policy that is antithetical to liberty and freedom.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Protectionism...



Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

+mega rep

 

[phill4paul]

his point is that the u.s. government prints money and exchanges it for chinese products. in other words, they produce, and the u.s. consumes. so as of now the U.S. is benefiting more.

Really?? My mind just snapped. Thank you,

 

[specsaregood]

Really?? My mind just snapped. Thank you,

The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

 

[low preference guy]

The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

i don't think it's a good analogy. the U.S. is committing suicide and burning his house and all his properties. when he is desperate and tries to sell whatever is left, the buyer of course will buy at a really good price.

 

[specsaregood]

i don't think it's a good analogy. the U.S. is committing suicide and burning his house and all his properties. when he is desperate and tries to sell whatever is left, the buyer of course will buy at a really good price.

yeah, but your analogy doesn't include the chinese eating our pink asses with rice and some seaweed paper. I think my analogy has a better cinematic feel to it.

 

[cindy25]

for an individual buying American is stupid as its against your self-interest, but as a government policy (protective tariffs ) it is different.
for any country as a whole its better to buy its own products, just as for a community as a whole its better to shop at local stores than at a Wal-Mart.

 

[pcosmar]

I want to be clear: I am not trying to tell you how to act.

Nor am I, and it should not be construed that way.
I am opposed to the managed trade that we have today. And I am of the belief that it is an intentional destruction of our economy (not an accident)
Once upon a time when we did manufacture,, Textiles for instance,,There were many choices in carpeting, various levels of quality,, and yet Persian rugs were highly sought after. They did not put American rug makers out of business.
When our Auto industry was booming (50s60s) People still bought imported vehicles. Either High or low end. Rolls Royce did not destroy the auto industry and neither did Volkswagen. (I miss beetles)

NASCAR is an example of the direction things have gone. I loved Stock Car racing,, when they raced stock cars. Now they are all basically the same car, without any more than a LOGO difference. There is no competition between manufacturers, nor any real world innovations.

I want trade. I want competition. I love innovation and distinction.
I want the Art and Style of another land, and want to have pride in those of my own land.
That is all being lost by central planning and management.

 

[phill4paul]

The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

Pig, man, Pig. Haha charade you are.....

 

[willwash]

Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.

his point is that the u.s. government prints money and exchanges it for chinese products. in other words, they produce, and the u.s. consumes. so as of now the U.S. is benefiting more.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.

All without firing a shot.

People forget that China is still a centrally planned communist country.

They've just updated Comrade Lenin's phrase: instead of us selling them the rope with which they hang us, they will sell us the rope with which we hang ourselves.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The pig benefits more for the years the farmer is busy feeding and fattening em up too. Then one day they go see the butcher.

Yeah, that's right; the chinese are planning on eating us.

I don't doubt that China is in position to 'slingshot' itself to the forefront of the world economy after the dollar collapses. In the meantime, we will have been insistent on sending all of our factories overseas, so we'll have to rebuild from scratch.

 

[roughridersten]

Except that the Chinese then take those dollars and buy up our debt with them, which makes it a weapon. The day China dumps all that debt is the day the dollar collapses completely. China would take a pretty big hit by doing that, but weapons are expensive, aren't they? A couple hundred billion to a trillion or so is pretty cheap to bring down the world's biggest superpower.

That is a great point to use when arguing with neocons that think spending our way to oblivion in wars makes us safer.

However, the problem is not that we trade with China, nor is it that we do not have enough tariffs. Rather, the problem is that our government promotes borrowing (both through borrowing itself, and holding interest rates low). China could not buy all that debt if we did not issue it in the first place!

 

[Krugerrand]

That is a great point to use when arguing with neocons that think spending our way to oblivion in wars makes us safer.

However, the problem is not that we trade with China, nor is it that we do not have enough tariffs. Rather, the problem is that our government promotes borrowing (both through borrowing itself, and holding interest rates low). China could not buy all that debt if we did not issue it in the first place!

Imagine going to a bank and saying you want to take out a loan to buy some clothes and groceries.