Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

[showpan]

I guess I need to post this here too.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I have debunked every one of your points here in this thread.
What was the dollar worth in 1913?
I'll answer that for you....a lot more than it is now....lol

Actually, you posted a bunch of figures you didn't understand, had them debunked, and claimed that my statistics were all false for no explained reason.

 

[JohnRego]

I have debunked every one of your points here in this thread.
What was the dollar worth in 1913?
I'll answer that for you....a lot more than it is now....lol

That's embarrassing. I would never link to a thread that ended like that for me.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'll take my internet, 80 year life expectancy, multiple cars, video games, and $42,000 per capita income.

Technological advances don't count, nor does a $42K inflated salary. You have to look at the time frame. Compare the U.S. pre-1913 (pre-Progressive, populist movement) to the rest of the world pre-1913. With tariffs, how did we fare against the rest of the world? How do you think we will fare in comparison, say, 50 years from now, especially if we did away with them completely, as an-caps advocate, at the rate we are now going?

Kicked tariffs away? Free Trade? These never happened, and it's blatently obvious. The United States does not engage in Free Trade with anyone.

We have low tariffs in comparison to the height of the American industrial age. Compared with the countries that are kicking our rear in production right now, we have miniscule tariffs, reciprocally speaking. Perhaps, "kicked to the curb" was too strong of phrasing, but obviously, there has been a sizeable decline in tariffs since the early 20th century.

Manufacturing is at all time highs by far.

Of course, this could reasonably be expected within any nation over time, but now compare the U.S. rate of industrial growth with that of other nations. Look at where the fastest growth is happening. I bet it ain't here.

You're being immoral because telling someone they have to buy something from some government protected firm, and go to jail if they buy it from outside the country and don't send a paycheck to the government. That's immoral corporatism at its finnest.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but as I stated previously, you're also being immoral, and you tried so hard to get around it by buying from companies overseas . . . that are protected by tariffs imposed by the governments of the countries they relocated to. If anything, you essentially mean that the U.S. doesn't have the right to be immoral, but other countries do, when it comes to 'protectionism.' I salute your intentions. But unfortunately, the fact that there's no real good way around it is a consequence of the harsh truth that some things don't fit easily into moral arguments when applied in reality. I hate it that the world is like that, but that's just the way it is. No one here has hands that aren't stained, except for maybe Anti-Federalist, who, as far as I know, won't even step on a sidewalk in front of a Wal-Mart.

Demand is infinite. Trade policy has no long term affect on unemployment.

In theory, yes. In reality, demand can be altered somewhat by tariffs. Again, this is not easily argued from a moral standpoint, because the morals we wish to see exist conflict with the reality that actually does exist. Reason being, even if the U.S. ended all tariffs and we somehow sought to meet the demands of other nations, our producers would not be able to compete fairly with manufacturers in countries which have enacted protectionist tariffs. American companies WILL move to other nations seeking those protective tariffs (taking job positions with them), because that is the nature of the corporate mindset. No businessman in his right mind will choose a 'free society' to set up shop, so long as there is an alternative which guarantees him profits. HOWEVER, if EVERY society were truly free, then they'd have no [government] to choose from, would they?—They'd have to make decisions based on how they could succeed on their own merits, which no one here would frown on, I hope. Furthermore, as has been shown here in the U.S., consumers will go to where the cheapest goods can be bought, regardless of why they are cheap. Most people will not reward businesses acting in 'good faith' over businesses acting in 'good prices.' Sorry.

I'm sure that this is the part where the socialist myth about how those jobs are "bad jobs" comes into play. Well, they pay more.

I did not say they are 'bad' jobs. I said that the conditions which brought about these jobs were bad. Example: Do you think that having a house that is worth a lot of money is a bad thing? No, of course not. BUT What happens if you have a house that is worth a lot of money because of government/financial policy? Well, something like that happened in 2008.

So, just don't be so giddy that the 'service economy' we have today was determined by the 'free-market'. Don't be so quick to claim that we've simply 'moved beyond' manufacturing, with such profound certainty, while we have the strongest central bank in the history of mankind at the helm.

You're disagreeing with every Austrian economist ever.

Again, they have brilliant theories on free trade, which I cannot personally refute. But, for example, if I told you that the moral, most beneficial option to choose when a gun-fight was about to break out, was 'not to be around,' or 'never to harm another being', I could base my arguments on some very moral, theoretically-sound principles. Unfortunately, my theories are of little use when you're actually getting shot at, since not shooting back will likely lead to severe wounds or death on your part. Morally, you win, for what it's worth. In reality, you were just a good man.

You're calling for government coercion, which 90% of economists(including all Austrian economists) disagree with in this case, in order to protect unions and corporations from competition. I think you need to look into the mirror

I'm calling for balance, and I'm limited on ideas as to how to achieve it, I will admit that. Either we have equal coercion (of which there is much disagreement) or no coercion at all (of which we would all agree, yet we'll die before we see it), but anything in between is going to lead to nothing more than a fabricated, massive transfer of weath.

Life's a b****, I hate things work this way. The world is not yet ready for Austrian economics, so long as governments co-mingle with corporations. In planned economies, just as bad money drives out the good, so too does bad business drive out the good business.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Technological advances don't count, nor does a $42K inflated salary. You have to look at the time frame. Compare the U.S. pre-1913 (pre-Progressive, populist movement) to the rest of the world pre-1913. With tariffs, how did we fare against the rest of the world? How do you think we will fare in comparison, say, 50 years from now, especially if we did away with them completely, as an-caps advocate, at the rate we are now going?

That wasn't the quote. You stated that there had been a massive transfer of wealth leaving the nation since the fed was created in 1913. Since then, the US has become far more wealthier due to capitalism.

We have low tariffs in comparison to the height of the American industrial age. Compared with the countries that are kicking our rear in production right now, we have miniscule tariffs, reciprocally speaking. Perhaps, "kicked to the curb" was too strong of phrasing, but obviously, there has been a sizeable decline in tariffs since the early 20th century.

Lowering tariffs somewhat doesn't mean that there are "no tariffs" with some countries as you claimed. The US has free trade with no nation on Earth, and tariffs against all. That is not Free Trade.

Of course, this could reasonably be expected within any nation over time, but now compare the U.S. rate of industrial growth with that of other nations. Look at where the fastest growth is happening. I bet it ain't here.

http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2008/10/30/global-manufacturing-data-2007/

As you can see, US manufacturing is still growing at a faster rate than most countries out there.

As of 2007, we were outgrowing all of the major European countries and Japan, the majority of the other developed countries around the world.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but as I stated previously, you're also being immoral, and you tried so hard to get around it by buying from companies overseas . . . that are protected by tariffs imposed by the governments of the countries they relocated to. If anything, you essentially mean that the U.S. doesn't have the right to be immoral, but other countries do, when it comes to 'protectionism.' I salute your intentions. But unfortunately, the fact that there's no real good way around it is a consequence of the harsh truth that some things don't fit easily into moral arguments when applied in reality. I hate it that the world is like that, but that's just the way it is.

I'll buy from whoever I want. The act of voluntarily buying a good is not immoral.

I have some control over my country, I can't help it if other countries are being immoral and robbing their people.

No one here has hands that aren't stained, except for maybe Anti-Federalist, who, as far as I know, won't even step on a sidewalk in front of a Wal-Mart.

In theory, yes. In reality, demand can be altered somewhat by tariffs.

No, just no. Human demand is infinite. That is one of the most basic economic principles out there and part of the Economic Problem.

Again, this is not easily argued from a moral standpoint, because the morals we wish to see exist conflict with the reality that actually does exist. Reason being, even if the U.S. ended all tariffs and we somehow sought to meet the demands of other nations, our producers would not be able to compete fairly with manufacturers in countries which have enacted protectionist tariffs. American companies WILL move to other nations seeking those protective tariffs (taking job positions with them), because that is the nature of the corporate mindset. No businessman in his right mind will choose a 'free society' to set up shop, so long as there is an alternative which guarantees him profits. HOWEVER, if EVERY society were truly free, then they'd have no [government] to choose from, would they?—They'd have to make decisions based on how they could succeed on their own merits, which no one here would frown on, I hope. Furthermore, as has been shown here in the U.S., consumers will go to where the cheapest goods can be bought, regardless of why they are cheap. Most people will not reward businesses acting in 'good faith' over businesses acting in 'good prices.' Sorry.

Enacting tariffs discourages foreign investment, not the other way around. It raises costs.

I did not say they are 'bad' jobs. I said that the conditions which brought about these jobs were bad. Example: Do you think that having a house that is worth a lot of money is a bad thing? No, of course not. BUT What happens if you have a house that is worth a lot of money because of government/financial policy? Well, something like that happened in 2008.

So, just don't be so giddy that the 'service economy' we have today was determined by the 'free-market'. Don't be so quick to claim that we've simply 'moved beyond' manufacturing, with such profound certainty, while we have the strongest central bank in the history of mankind at the helm.

The housing bubble was created by government against the markets wishes. Inspite of the painful tariffs and other taxes and regulations they have to deal with, the market is moving the United States past the traditional manufacturing economy.

Again, they have brilliant theories on free trade, which I cannot personally refute. But, for example, if I told you that the moral, most beneficial option to choose when a gun-fight was about to break out, was 'not to be around,' or 'never to harm another being', I could base my arguments on some very moral, theoretically-sound principles. Unfortunately, my theories are of little use when you're actually getting shot at, since not shooting back will likely lead to severe wounds or death on your part. Morally, you win, for what it's worth. In reality, you were just a good man.

You don't find it at all odd that you agree with Austrian Economics on almost everything but this?

I'm calling for balance, and I'm limited on ideas as to how to achieve it, I will admit that. Either we have equal coercion (of which there is much disagreement) or no coercion at all (of which we would all agree, yet we'll die before we see it), but anything in between is going to lead to nothing more than a fabricated, massive transfer of weath.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trade-wars-were-like-real-wars.html

When nations are at war with each other, they try to put up blockades against each other to keep products out.

 

[ProIndividual]

First off...

...everyone saying "mehhh, but the founders liked tariffs.."...

..are dangling an informal logical fallacy in front of us free traders like it matters.

The founders liked slavery as much as protectionism; not uniformly, but enough for it to be policy...and both are backward economic policies, and all the data proves that. Neither policy was moral.

"Appeal to antiquity", or "appeal to tradition" is an informal logical fallacy. BUSTED!


Second of all...

I'm tired of being belittled and told "you must not know this or that" because I support free trade.

IT ISN'T US WHO LACK INFORMATION.

I used to be a protectionist libtard...then I read a bunch of books, and over a period of years, through EDUCATION (not a lack thereof), I realized how bad mercantilist and Keynesian economics are.

It's free markets or you're helping an oligrachy, it's immoral. It's free markets, or you get less of everything, and with more distorted distribution. It's free markets, or booms and busts forever.

We aren't the ones lacking in the reading department.

Stop supporting anti-free market capitalist pursuits, start supporting what the data does: FREE TRADE.

Cutlerzzz, good job so far.

 

[showpan]

That's embarrassing. I would never link to a thread that ended like that for me.

Those facts and figures have not been debunked, not embarrassed at all...lol...at least most of my info came from the govt data unlike wiki links and other statistics that have been rewritten, like manufacturing Big Macs...lol

 

[ProIndividual]

And for the gazillionth time I'm gonna list a few applicable fallacies you protectionist suffer from...

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436



4. Tariffs that limit imports, and policies that encourage exports, are good ideas

The fallacy that government is a better judge of the most profitable modes of directing labor and capital than individuals is well illustrated by exporting policies. In the twentieth century, the federal government has sought to promote exports in various ways. The first was by forcing open foreign markets through a combination of diplomatic and military pressure, all the while keeping our own markets wholly or partially closed. The famous "open door" policy, formulated by Secretary of State John Hay in 1899 was never meant to be reciprocal (after all, he served in the McKinley administration, the most archly protectionist in American history), and it often required a gun boat and a contingent of hard charging marines to kick open the door.

A second method was export subsidies, which are still with us. The Export-Import Bank was established by Roosevelt in 1934 to provide cash grants, government-guaranteed loans, and cheap credit to exporters and their overseas customers. It remains today-untouched by "alleged" free market Republican administrations and congresses.


A third method was dollar devaluation, to cheapen the selling price of American goods abroad. In 1933, Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard and revalued it at $34.06, which represented a significant devaluation. The object was to allow for more domestic inflation and to boost exports, particularly agricultural ones, which failed; now Bush is trying it.

I'd just like to point out, FDR's agriculture policies caused the "soup lines" or "bread lines" we always hear so much about. He had 10 million acres of crops destroyed and 6 million farm animals killed in order to boost domestic food prices for producers. This raised the price of food. His subsidies to export made exporting the food more profitable than selling it domestically. The combination of the two led to food shortages. So, next time some liberal claims that stimulus and bailouts prevented "soup and bread lines", remind them those were the fault of FDR and bad economics. It doesn't even matter that stimulus and bailouts don't work (or work well), it's enough the Obama administration isn't as dull on economics as their Roosevelt predecessors. We simply don't have these "soup and bread lines" because no one is repeating FDR's mistakes, which caused them to begin with.


A fourth method, tried by the Reagan administration, was driving down farm prices to boost exports, thereby shrinking the trade deficit. The plan was that America would undersell its competitors, capture markets, and rake in foreign exchange. (When others do this it is denounced as unfair, as predatory trade.) What happened? Well, it turned out that the agricultural export market was rather elastic. Countries like Brazil and Argentina, depending on farm exports as one of their few sources of foreign exchange, which they desperately needed to service their debt loads, simply cut their prices to match the Americans. Plan fails.


But it got worse: American farmers had to sell larger quantities (at the lower prices) just to break even. Nevertheless, although the total volume of American agricultural exports increased, their real value (in constant dollars) fell - more work, lower profits. Furthermore, farmers had to import more oil and other producer goods to expand their production, which worsened the trade deficit. Then, there were the unforeseen and deleterious side-effects. Expanded cultivation and livestock-raising stressed out and degraded the quality of the soils, polluted watersheds, and lowered the nutritional value of the expanded crop of vegetables, grains, and animal proteins.

The author says "worsened" trade deficits, in italics, for a reason. Trade deficits are not negative, and the fact people think trade deficits are negative is itself a fallacy. We will cover this fallacy here, after we have finished with this part.


Finally, the policy of lower price/higher volume drove many small farmers, here and abroad, off the land, into the cities, and across the border, our border. Here is an economic policy that not only failed in its purpose but worsened the very problem it was intended to alleviate, and caused a nutritional, ecological, and demographic catastrophe.

I wished the author would have also italicized "problem", as to further drive home the point that trade deficits are not negative. So, let's address this fallacy now.


•The instinctive reaction of politicians is that if one country places a tariff barrier on our exports, we should respond by doing the same. However economic theory suggests that placing a tariff barrier on imports leads to a loss of economic welfare. It is better to not retaliate.

Time and time again, trade restrictions like tariffs have hurt our country's economy, not helped it.


The Embargo Act of 1807 and the subsequent Nonintercourse Acts were American laws restricting American ships from engaging in foreign trade between the years of 1807 and 1812. They led to the War of 1812 between the U.S. and Britain.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British merchants.[8] (Since the damage that was caused was so widespread and severe, you can liken this to 'stepping over dollars, to pick up pennies')

The Embargo was in fact hurting the United States as much as Britain or France. Britain, expected to suffer most from the American regulations, found consolation in the development of a South American market, and the British shipowners were pleased that American competition had been removed by the action of the U.S. government.

The attempt of Jefferson and Madison to resist aggression by peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812 when Britain finally promised to repeal her Orders in Council. The British concession was too late, for by the time the news reached America the United States had already declared the War of 1812 against Britain.

The entire series of events was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me ('Embargo' spelled backward); there was a cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, named "O' grab me", grabbing at American shipping.



Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff (P.L. 71-361)[1] was an act, sponsored by United States Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in US history, exceeded (by a small margin) only by the Tariff of 1828[3] and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners reduced American exports and imports by more than half.

Some economists have opined that the tariffs contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.[4][5][6]

U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP. ( I want everyone to notice, we are in an era of a horrible economy with high unemployment and trade surpluses. In 1929, the trade surplus was $1 billion, this did not however translate to long term growth or more employment. In 1933, we ran a smaller trade surplus and had worsening effects, along with LESS TRADE OVERALL. Trade surpluses (foreign exchange deficits) are often regarded as good, but they have almost never translated into higher growth rates or low unemployment rates. The higher growth rates and lower unemployment rates are found in periods of high trade deficits (foreign exchange surpluses). The very way governments come up with trade numbers, and whether a nation has deficits or not, has been criticized as nearly erroneous, by free market economists from Frederic Bastiat to Don Boudreaux. Bastiat demonstrated that a government can record a deficit, even though a net profit was made by their citizen who was involved in the trade. This is counter intutitive, but deductively logical. The government numbers record the price at sale, not the resale value and profit made. When this profit is taken into account, then the only debt in the 'trade deficit' that is not covered by the foreign exchange surplus is government debt acrued by borrowing from foreigners. When people say "we need to do something about the trade deficit", I say "yes we do, we need to stop letting the government run in deficit and debt by borrowing money from foreigners". The common misconception is that unbalanced, or even unreciprocated, trade is bad for the economy. In fact, private sector trade is not debt, and is not bad for the economy at all. It's the debt the government runs up in the trade deficit that materializes as debt, and gives trade deficits a bad name. Private sector trade, good...Public Sector borrowing, bad. As you can see from the severely diminished trade numbers above, protectionism shrinks the economic pie, while free trade (or at least free-er trade) expands the total economic pie, benefiting everyone.)

According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[15]

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[16] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[17]

Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley's effect on the entire U.S. economy.[18]

I think it's fair to say the money supply was responsible for the deflation (too little money in circulation), and the tariffs were responsible for reduction in trade and GDP, overall.

I think it's pretty clear, interfering in the economy to spur exports or reduce imports only hurt the economy. Which, by chance, brings us to our next fallacy...





5. The fallacy of trade deficits

The 19th century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France, and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If, in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit against the ledger of France.[30]

In the above example, there is a single trader who is traveling and trading across national borders. The Frenchman owns a cask of wine worth 50 francs, and travels with it to England. France records an export of 50 francs, England an import of 50 francs.. In England, he sells his wine for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent) and buys 70 francs worth of English coal. He then leaves England for France with the 70 francs of coal, so that Enland records this as an export and France as an import. So, England has exported 20 francs more than it has imported, for a trade surplus of 20 francs. Meanwhile France imported 20 francs more than it exported, for a trade deficit of 20 francs. This is the last time the trade is recorded by either government, the entire reason why trade numbers are irrelevant in most cases to trade effects. Therefore, it's important to notice that the nation with the trade surplus (England) actually "lost money" on the trades, while the nation with the trade deficit (France) actually made all the profits. But the trade did not conclude with the importation of 70 francs of English coal by the Frenchman...he then sells it in his native France for 90 francs, without any government recording it as an import/export. This means the trader profited 40 francs overall (he turned 50 francs of wine into 90 francs), and yet his government calls it a 20 franc loss. The idea he lost money for himself, or for his nations GDP, is erroneous.



The idea trade surplus or deficit is directly tied to whether the trade is "balanced" or not, is fallacious. The trade deficit is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange surplus in the private sector. The trade surplus is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange deficit. Every product traded for currency is an investment in currency. Every trade of currency for a commodity is an investment in that commodity. There basically is no such thing as "balanced trade", because every trade is balanced by virtue of the fact they are voluntary, and because of the inverse relationship of trade and foreign exchange. Trade and foreign exchange are negatively correlated.

By reductio ad absurdum, Bastiat argued that the national trade deficit was an indicator of a successful economy, rather than a failing one. Bastiat predicted that a successful, growing economy would result in greater trade deficits, and an unsuccessful, shrinking economy would result in lower trade deficits. This was later, in the 20th century, affirmed by economist Milton Friedman.

Contrary to popular misconception, trade deficits are correlated with higher growth rates, lower unemployment, and wealthier periods. The opposite is true for trade surpluses. We should embrace trade deficits, if in fact we put any creedance in them at all.





NOTICE, I ADDRESS THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF ACT.

 

[showpan]

And I already proved that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff didn't do what you claim...lol

 

[ProIndividual]

And I already proved that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff didn't do what you claim...lol

No, you didn't. It did deepen the Depression, that much is in my DATA. It screwed up trade.

I never claimed it caused, or was the majority problem with the Great Depression...and I mention as much.

But keep being a dogmatist afraid of facts...I'm used to it from protectionists and other assorted mercantilist/Keynesians.


How does it feel to be a mercantilist/Keynesian? I used to be one...I wasn't very educated at the time, young, and didn't like myself very much. I'm so glad I shed my false beliefs and woke up to free markets...it made my whole life better, and my understanding of the world much clearer.

You should try it.



Ps. Try addressing all the data in my post about the general idea of protectionism in the forms of tariffs, subsidies, increased money supply, and manipulations in trade deficits/balance/surpluses. I'd love to see you show how I'm wrong.

Trade deficits being negative for an economy is FACTUALLY wrong. They're corollary to good times, like lower unemployment and higher growth. Trade restrictions, subsidies, and currency manipulation...AS I SHOWED....fail for logical reasons.

I also addressed immigration in another post we are dueling in...if arguing with a wall is considered dueling anyway.



Some folks claim FDR sucked, then say "let's repeat his mistakes! Can never have too many soup and bread lines! Food shortages, woohoooo!"

 

[nobody's_hero]

That wasn't the quote. You stated that there had been a massive transfer of wealth leaving the nation since the fed was created in 1913. Since then, the US has become far more wealthier due to capitalism.

Compared to some other nations of the world (biggest competitors), you could easily say we have no tariffs. It's not that far off. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest. Compare China's tariffs with the U.S. Compare Japan's tariffs with the U.S. Overall, we pretty much have 'no tariffs.'

Wealth has been leaving the U.S. since 1913. I see it does not take much for the Fed's illusion to fool you.

Lowering tariffs somewhat doesn't mean that there are "no tariffs" with some countries as you claimed. The US has free trade with no nation on Earth, and tariffs against all. That is not Free Trade.

No free trade, anywhere. Got it. Agreed. Varying degrees of trade, yes? How's that working out for us?

As you can see, US manufacturing is still growing at a faster rate than most countries out there.

As of 2007, we were outgrowing all of the major European countries and Japan, the majority of the other developed countries around the world.

The updated data from the United Nations (<<-----that's where I stopped reading, sorry) on manufacturing output . . .

It isn't so much that it's not possible, but the UN has an agenda, which has been to siphon wealth from the U.S. by any means possible and redistribute it to the rest of the world. Other than that, I could believe them, when they tell us we're still economically strong, while taking our wallets out of our back pockets.

I'll buy from whoever I want. The act of voluntarily buying a good is not immoral.

I have some control over my country, I can't help it if other countries are being immoral and robbing their people.

So you'd buy a stolen CD player, knowing it's stolen, and be so bold as to admit that it's your voluntary right to 'do business with whomever you please'.

Most of the Asian continent is shipping C.D. players to the U.S. that have come from protected (EVIL!!!!) economies. Shucks, at least when I buy it, I know it's only because I don't really have a choice. I'd much rather make my own C.D. player. Call it what you will, but you can't claim the moral high ground here. None of us can, really. And it does suck, I'll admit.

No, just no. Human demand is infinite. That is one of the most basic economic principles out there and part of the Economic Problem.

Not quite. In a theory which assumes there is complete, unregulated competition in the world, in which demand can be met, yes. In reality . . .

Real-life example: There is an ice cream truck that comes through my neighborhood, and one day, I was doing yard work in the heat and decided I wanted a chocolate eclair. So I go to the window and look at the menu, and lo and behold, one damn ice cream bar is priced at $2.75. At that point, my demand for ice cream immediately subsided and I did without. My decision was based on the irrationality of paying that much for an ice cream bar at the time. There is always a price (it may be rediculously high, mind you) at which demand gets capped, regardless of the circumstances.

Enacting tariffs discourages foreign investment, not the other way around. It raises costs.

Ok, try this: Substitute 'protective tariffs' for 'subsidies' (both forms of corporatism). You're telling me that a government giving a company subsidies (bailouts) is NOT going to encourage investment (foreign or otherwise)? According to what reality, on what planet? AIG's stock skyrocketed after government deemed them too big to fail, and promised them support. Those investors you seem to think will do the right thing if given a choice between 'freedom' and 'government-guaranteed profits' made a killing, and not because they believed in freedom. I'm not saying it was right or moral, understand that. I'm saying that this is what actually happened.

The housing bubble was created by government against the markets wishes. Inspite of the painful tariffs and other taxes and regulations they have to deal with, the market is moving the United States past the traditional manufacturing economy.

Again, I think you're in for a rude awakening, but I can't put my argument more clearly than I already have. Time will tell.

You don't find it at all odd that you agree with Austrian Economics on almost everything but this?

Oh, but I agree with this, in theory. But when I try to put it into practice, something about being free to import all I want but not being able to export what I want, due primarily to government manipulation in various regions of the world, including governments I can't control, seems kind of a half-***ed interpretation of Austrian economic theory, to me. The half-implemented theory seriously clashes with unfortunate reality, and that's the ONLY problem I have with it.

If I woke up tomorrow and there was not a government in the world, I'd be "free trade's" newest and loudest advocate.

When nations are at war with each other, they try to put up blockades against each other to keep products out.

That's the old way. Now when a nation wants to go to war, they do it economically (except for the U.S. and a few others, who seem to be lagging behind the trend). You keep American goods out of your country and leave Americans no choice but to import yours. Of course, it helps to buy off a few hundred or so D.C. bureaucrats so no one argues loudly for things like sovereignty and the like.

 

[showpan]

There isn't any proof at all that it deepened the great depression either since the worlds economy was still sinking....you haven't proved anything at all. I stand with our founding fathers and you stand with globalist neocons.

dueling...lol...the math never lies.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Compared to some other nations of the world (biggest competitors), you could easily say we have no tariffs. It's not that far off. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest. Compare China's tariffs with the U.S. Compare Japan's tariffs with the U.S. Overall, we pretty much have 'no tariffs.'

No, you cannot. Any business in a foreign country has to pay a fee to sell to America. Americans generally having to pay a greater fee to sell does not change that at all.

Wealth has been leaving the U.S. since 1913. I see it does not take much for the Fed's illusion to fool you.

Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but that is just plain stupid. The US economy is 100 times largers than it was in 1913. Capital has been accumulating for 98 years. Technology has been improving for 98 years.

Those numbers I showed you before about wages are adjusted to inflation. The average American makes 6 times more now than he did in 1913 according to most of my sources.

Do you know anyone who would rather live in 1913 than today?

No free trade, anywhere. Got it. Agreed. Varying degrees of trade, yes? How's that working out for us?

Pretty good, as comparative advantage has kept prices down and allowed the American work force to specialize.

The updated data from the United Nations (<<-----that's where I stopped reading, sorry) on manufacturing output . . .

It isn't so much that it's not possible, but the UN has an agenda, which has been to siphon wealth from the U.S. by any means possible and redistribute it to the rest of the world. Other than that, I could believe them, when they tell us we're still economically strong, while taking our wallets out of our back pockets.

Most economic data is provided by central banks, international organizations, or special interest groups. If you can invalidate the statistic, then be my guess(I'll just post another one backing it up). If you can't, than accept it. It's amazing how close minded someone can be...

So you'd buy a stolen CD player, knowing it's stolen, and be so bold as to admit that it's your voluntary right to 'do business with whomever you please'.

Most of the Asian continent is shipping C.D. players to the U.S. that have come from protected (EVIL!!!!) economies. Shucks, at least when I buy it, I know it's only because I don't really have a choice. I'd much rather make my own C.D. player. Call it what you will, but you can't claim the moral high ground here. None of us can, really. And it does suck, I'll admit.

It was created through voluntary means. I guess that War is Peace now.

Not quite. In a theory which assumes there is complete, unregulated competition in the world, in which demand can be met, yes. In reality . . .

Real-life example: There is an ice cream truck that comes through my neighborhood, and one day, I was doing yard work in the heat and decided I wanted a chocolate eclair. So I go to the window and look at the menu, and lo and behold, one damn ice cream bar is priced at $2.75. At that point, my demand for ice cream immediately subsided and I did without. My decision was based on the irrationality of paying that much for an ice cream bar at the time. There is always a price (it may be rediculously high, mind you) at which demand gets capped, regardless of the circumstances.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not about short term demand. It is about an economic law regarding human nature. There will always be employment opportunities, as human desires are infinite. The biggest question about economics is meeting unlimited human desires with limited resources.

Ok, try this: Substitute 'protective tariffs' for 'subsidies' (both forms of corporatism). You're telling me that a government giving a company subsidies (bailouts) is NOT going to encourage investment (foreign or otherwise)? According to what reality, on what planet? AIG's stock skyrocketed after government deemed them too big to fail, and promised them support. Those investors you seem to think will do the right thing if given a choice between 'freedom' and 'government-guaranteed profits' made a killing, and not because they believed in freedom. I'm not saying it was right or moral, understand that. I'm saying that this is what actually happened.

Except that it is not a direct subsidy. It will raise costs. It is the opposite of a subsidy.

Oh, but I agree with this, in theory. But when I try to put it into practice, something about being free to import all I want but not being able to export what I want, due primarily to government manipulation in various regions of the world, including governments I can't control, seems kind of a half-***ed interpretation of Austrian economic theory, to me. The half-implemented theory seriously clashes with unfortunate reality, and that's the ONLY problem I have with it.

If I woke up tomorrow and there was not a government in the world, I'd be "free trade's" newest and loudest advocate.

You don't seem to understand the theory at all. The point of the theories behind Free Trade(and Comparative Advantage) is that it will work in all cases. It is rather simple, if you can recognize that the division of labor is good.

That's the old way. Now when a nation wants to go to war, they do it economically (except for the U.S. and a few others, who seem to be lagging behind the trend). You keep American goods out of your country and leave Americans no choice but to import yours. Of course, it helps to buy off a few hundred or so D.C. bureaucrats so no one argues loudly for things like sovereignty and the like

Do you have any examples of this?

Last I checked, the US put up sanctions of Iraq long before invading, and is trying the same with Iran and North Korea.

 

[nobody's_hero]

OKay, on last one, and then I'm going out of town for the weekend so the free-traders won't have to put up with me for three whole days

No, you cannot. Any business in a foreign country has to pay a fee to sell to America. Americans generally having to pay a greater fee to sell does not change that at all.

Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies.

Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but that is just plain stupid. The US economy is 100 times largers than it was in 1913. Capital has been accumulating for 98 years. Technology has been improving for 98 years.

Those numbers I showed you before about wages are adjusted to inflation. The average American makes 6 times more now than he did in 1913 according to most of my sources.

Do you know anyone who would rather live in 1913 than today?

Name one society in the world that has not developed in the past century. I'll bet you even the most primitive, isolated Amazonian tribe in South America has found a new use for wood in the past 100 years. I'm saying that wealth has been siphoned off by managed trade, not that 'we are not wealthier/more advanced than we were.' It's sort of like when the Fed claims that the dollar is strong, by comparing the dollar with currencies in countries that are simply going poorer at a faster rate than we are. It looks really good to someone who hasn't analyzed it beneath the surface. You start to think about where we should/could be compared to where we are.

It was created through voluntary means. I guess that War is Peace now.

Voluntary for who? It's more complicated than saying 'war is peace'. I already told you, this is the way it works—not the way we dream it to work in free trade workshops at the Mises institute. Believe me, the time for Austrian free-trade economics will come, but they're still ahead of their time. For instance, as much as I'd like to go to Greece right now and hand out literature from Mises.org, I doubt they'd be in much of a mood for it, admidst the rioting for more government intervention.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not about short term demand. It is about an economic law regarding human nature. There will always be employment opportunities, as human desires are infinite. The biggest question about economics is meeting unlimited human desires with limited resources.

We'll see. I think the only chance a lot of people are going to have for employment is going to be to move to a country that is more totalitarian than ours, that imposes truly protectionist policies for industries that former Americans are attracted to out of desparation.

Except that it is not a direct subsidy. It will raise costs. It is the opposite of a subsidy.

It is not a cost to the industries. They are cozy where they're at.

The sad truth is that if one nation offers 'protection' and another doesn't, it becomes very easy to predict where businesses will set up shop. As stated earlier, if given the option to sleep with the government, corporations will not choose a 'free society' over 'guaranteed profits'. A few may do the admirable thing, and those might be considered the "mom-and-pop" stores that are being shuttered by "competition" from businesses that are sleeping with some government, somewhere in the world. This is because 99% of the consumers will always choose 'cost' over 'character.' Either every government in the world must offer equal protection, or there must be no governments to offer any protection. I'd prefer the latter; I could tolerate the former. Not an ideal option by any means, but an option nonetheless.

You don't seem to understand the theory at all. The point of the theories behind Free Trade(and Comparative Advantage) is that it will work in all cases. It is rather simple, if you can recognize that the division of labor is good.

Nearly every time it is attempted in practice, government gets in the way. This is because there is one thing that Austrian economist free-traders have not factored in, and that is that governments, as well as the most freedom-loving capitalists in the private sector, will also compete for resources. Unfortunately, when one government takes more resources than another, it upsets the dynamics drastically in the private sector (they have to take it from somebody). As stated before, they must either take the same proportionately from everyone, or they take nothing proportionately from everyone (this will happen when governments don't exist).

Do you have any examples of this?

Last I checked, the US put up sanctions of Iraq long before invading, and is trying the same with Iran and North Korea.

Trade war with China. They have us by the balls. As Jace said, we've pretty much lost that trade war. I'm not talking about militarily. The days of defeating nations militarily are quickly closing. Future wars will be fought using only lawyers, bureaucrats, and banks.

Y'all have a good weekend. I've been re-reading my posts and, as I tend to do especially on the economics forum, I got heated. So in retrospect, I apologize for parts where things got . . . sour. Yet, I'm not as frustrated with the 'free traders' as I am with the establishment. I look forward to the day when the establishment is dissolved and the free-traders have a chance to really show their stuff.

Ron Paul 2012.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies.

Name one society in the world that has not developed in the past century. I'll bet you even the most primitive, isolated Amazonian tribe in South America has found a new use for wood in the past 100 years. I'm saying that wealth has been siphoned off by managed trade, not that 'we are not wealthier/more advanced than we were.' It's sort of like when the Fed claims that the dollar is strong, by comparing the dollar with currencies in countries that are simply going poorer at a faster rate than we are. It looks really good to someone who hasn't analyzed it beneath the surface. You start to think about where we should/could be compared to where we are.

Do you realize that importing goods increases wealth? Can you name any economists today who believe that imports are bad?

Voluntary for who? It's more complicated than saying 'war is peace'. I already told you, this is the way it works—not the way we dream it to work in free trade workshops at the Mises institute. Believe me, the time for Austrian free-trade economics will come, but they're still ahead of their time. For instance, as much as I'd like to go to Greece right now and hand out literature from Mises.org, I doubt they'd be in much of a mood for it, admidst the rioting for more government intervention.

It's voluntary because the only two parties involved agree to it on their own accord.

We'll see. I think the only chance a lot of people are going to have for employment is going to be to move to a country that is more totalitarian than ours, that imposes truly protectionist policies for industries that former Americans are attracted to out of desparation.

It is not a cost to the industries. They are cozy where they're at.

The sad truth is that if one nation offers 'protection' and another doesn't, it becomes very easy to predict where businesses will set up shop. As stated earlier, if given the option to sleep with the government, corporations will not choose a 'free society' over 'guaranteed profits'. A few may do the admirable thing, and those might be considered the "mom-and-pop" stores that are being shuttered by "competition" from businesses that are sleeping with some government, somewhere in the world. This is because 99% of the consumers will always choose 'cost' over 'character.' Either every government in the world must offer equal protection, or there must be no governments to offer any protection. I'd prefer the latter; I could tolerate the former. Not an ideal option by any means, but an option nonetheless.

Protectionism DOES raise costs. That is indisputable. It raises prices for everyone, including producers.

Nearly every time it is attempted in practice, government gets in the way. This is because there is one thing that Austrian economist free-traders have not factored in, and that is that governments, as well as the most freedom-loving capitalists in the private sector, will also compete for resources. Unfortunately, when one government takes more resources than another, it upsets the dynamics drastically in the private sector (they have to take it from somebody). As stated before, they must either take the same proportionately from everyone, or they take nothing proportionately from everyone (this will happen when governments don't exist).

The government getting involved does not make Free Trade a bad idea. If you think otherwise, point out some actual specific problem.

Trade war with China. They have us by the balls. As Jace said, we've pretty much lost that trade war. I'm not talking about militarily. The days of defeating nations militarily are quickly closing. Future wars will be fought using only lawyers, bureaucrats, and banks.

You have one of the strangest conceptions of trade I've ever seen. Do you even realize that a trade deficit is not a budget deficit? You have the same arguments as some British mercantilist from 300 years ago. Countries with healthy economies run bigger trade deficits than countries with unhealthy economies, as a strong economy encourages foreign investment.

China has lost big time in their attempts to manipulate their currency. They are impoverishing their own people in order to help selected industries, and make things cheaper for the United States in the process. The United States is receiving actual products from China; we are getting material wealth. They are receiving paper dollars with value that is rapidly deteriorating. This is good for the United States; China is only hurting themselves with this intervention.

Y'all have a good weekend. I've been re-reading my posts and, as I tend to do especially on the economics forum, I got heated. So in retrospect, I apologize for parts where things got . . . sour. Yet, I'm not as frustrated with the 'free traders' as I am with the establishment. I look forward to the day when the establishment is dissolved and the free-traders have a chance to really show their stuff.

Ron Paul 2012

Have a good weekend. Ron Paul 2012.

 

[ProIndividual]

Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies.

"Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade..." --- Adam Smith

 

[ProIndividual]

dueling...lol...the math never lies

Yeah I agree...but that picture of a building is called an anecdote, not math...and you pull up a pic like that everytime you can't refute our numbers...hmmm.

 

[Jace]

..

 

[romacox]

To say that the Founding Fathers liked tariffs is a bit of a stretch, and I do not find where anyone here has actually argued that. They have said the following though:

The Truth is we know:

• tariffs are written in the Constitution as one of the enumerated powers

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (tariffs) and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

• The Washington administration did use them to sever our dependence on British goods by encouraging American Made
• During this time the Country did suffer very high inflation. The Country came close to collapsing into anarchy several times. But we also gained our freedom.

However, according to Justice Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice from1811 to 1845, borne 3 years after the American Revolution and who's father fought in the American Revolution):

• George Washington was the one most interested in making sure the Federal Government had restricted powers to collect revenue. The reason for this was that, several times during the American Revolution, he had to leave his starving, scantly clothed troops to beg the Continental Congress for funds. You see the Continental Congress had no power to tax, and that nearly cost us the war.
• The Founding Fathers viewed taxation as one of the powers that could be most abused, yet a necessary evil, if we were going to have a standing army to protect us from invasion by foreign armies.
• Woodrow Wilson added the taxation of labor, which was one the Founding Fathers were opposed to, and is likely more dangerous than any that the Founding Fathers authorized such as tariffs. (See Jace's Post)

Note: one very important point made by some in this discussion is that because of the over reaching powers of the Federal Reserve (known by our Founding Fathers as the Central Bank), all taxes are currently abused. Until we nullify the Fed, we can never return to a Republic (true freedom) . (see Jace's Post. He said several wise things. We are really arguing over the wrong things...shell games to detract us. )

Brief History Of The Federal Reserve:​

The story of central banking goes back at least to the seventeenth century, to the founding of the first institution recognized as a central bank, the Swedish Riksbank. Established in 1668 as a joint stock bank, it was chartered to lend the government funds and to act as a clearing house for commerce. A few decades later (1694), the most famous central bank of the era, the Bank of England,

While these early central banks helped fund the government’s debt, they were also private entities that engaged in banking activities. Because they held the deposits of other banks, they came to serve as banks for bankers, facilitating transactions between banks or providing other banking services. They became the repository for most banks in the banking system because of their large reserves and extensive networks of correspondent banks.

The U.S. experience was most interesting. It had two central banks in the early nineteenth century, the Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and a second Bank of the United States (1816–1836). Both were set up on the model of the Bank of England, but unlike the British, Americans bore a deep-seated distrust of any concentration of financial power in general, and of central banks in particular, so that in each case, the charters were not renewed.

Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States. He made the following statements:

“It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? … Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”

“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to root you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will root you out.”

And he did root the out in 1836. But they returned under Woodrow Wilson in what is now called The Federal Reserve.

In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt. He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.

Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived. It is alleged that Lawrence said that “wealthy people in Europe” had put him up to it.

James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers. In 1881 he said the following….

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881. He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.

In 1914 the Federal Reserve (New Name For Central Bank…if people don’t like it, just change the name) opened for business again under Woodrow Wilson. Note: even though it has the word “Federal” in it’s name, it is not part of the Federal Government…it is privately owned by International Bank Cartels.

One of the key players in the creation of the Federal Reserve was Mayer Armshel Rothschild. He made the following statement:

“Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws”

The Federal Reserve is a staunch supporter of Keynesian Economics which basically believes that “debt is money”.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

dueling...lol...the math never lies.

I've never seen anyone's silly argument so utterly destroyed as ProIndividual did to you in the other thread. you resort to ad hominems, character assassinations, and logical fallacies after your claims are destroyed. you're correct, math doesn't lie. the problem is that you don't seem to understand the math. stop making these asinine posts, you're embarrassing yourself at this point.