Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

[therepublic]

I agree. Theft and rape is always bad. So we agree that taxes are all bad.

You argue about a small tick, and miss the elephant in the room. Your question has already been answered in earlier posts. Go back and reread them.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

You argue about a small tick, and miss the elephant in the room. Your question has already been answered in earlier posts. Go back and reread them.

Small tick? Locking people in jail for not sending their paycheck to the government is a small tick?

 

[The Grinning Maniac]

First of all… stop calling everything and everyone communist/socialist. It’s an annoying catch phrase and it makes you look foolish.

“You just said that word again. I don’t think it means what you think it means”
–Princess Bride

I am firmly capitalist. I just know a rigged game when I see one.

Here's what is NOT logical. Raising prices on domestic goods by imposing tariffs, which means goods are costlier for Americans to buy, which means they'll be able to enjoy LESS goods/services & therefore, have a lower living standard.

This is not necessarily true. I really only have anecdotal evidence to go on, but from what I understand and have observed, prices of products have not uniformly gone down since labor has moved offshore. In many cases, the difference has just ended up in producers’ pockets. Former bigwigs of Wal-Mart have admitted as much. They stressed moving production to Asia in order to boost profits and raise stock prices. (PBS documentary on Wal-Mart. Google it.)

I don’t think the prices of products would have to change if companies reverted their profit margins to what they were pre-offshoring. However, I do agree with you that government regulations could be trimmed back. Not eliminated to the base level of China, but trimmed in order to make things easier. I think I might start a thread one of these days to discuss what could be practically done/list ridiculous regulatory costs. But that’s another day.

Here's the thing, I don't believe in communist central-planning so I don't know what goods/services enterpreneurs will be interested in producing if we're NOT over-regulated & over-taxed & allow freedom to prosper but if they're given an unregulated untaxed market to work with then they'll produce things that have a demand in America as well as in other countries & things that they CAN do well.

Here’s the “you’re a communist if you don’t believe what I do” thing again. Please stop. You’re not understanding….what CAN they produce? What could these entrepreneurs possible produce that a competitor operating in a low-wage country couldn’t undercut them on? What could they invent that couldn’t be reverse-engineered in China and sent back to us at a lower cost than production?

If it’s a technical service, what would it be that you couldn’t get Indians to do for cheaper? Product design? Web design? Graphic design? What isn’t vulnerable? If it’s agricultural, Mexico can do it. You’re waving your hand and saying freedom will take care of it. But one-sided “free trade” hasn’t worked.

Wouldn't people having better-paying jobs give them more money with which to start businesses? Wouldn't removing the threat of being unfairly undercut by low-wage competitors make people more likely to start a business? I know I'd be more interested.

Here’s what I want you to answer: Why would companies ever come back to this country if they have the option of operating where they can pay wages that are next to nothing? Do you think removing all regulations would cause them to ignore that huge selling point? Or do you want Americans to work for Chinese wages too? At which point, doesn’t our standard of living go down from where it is right now, regardless of all this new “freedom”?

 

[therepublic]

Small tick? Locking people in jail for not sending their paycheck to the government is a small tick?

What does that have to do with tariffs or the price of tea in China? Picking one sentence out of context, and hijacking the conversation in a direction that has nothing to do with the OP is a waste of time. Instead tell us what you are about. Are you against all taxes? If so explain. Are you an anarchist? If not how would you fund a government?

 

[therepublic]

OK, now for those of you who are not hijacking the conversation by taking things out of context (those who are communicating your personal beliefs), please continue. I was enjoying your writings.

 

[ProIndividual]

Instead tell us what you are about. Are you against all taxes? If so explain. Are you an anarchist? If not how would you fund a government?

Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance.


A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population.

So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.

This is not difficult to understand.

And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.

 

[axiomata]

This is not necessarily true. I really only have anecdotal evidence to go on, but from what I understand and have observed, prices of products have not uniformly gone down since labor has moved offshore. In many cases, the difference has just ended up in producers’ pockets. Former bigwigs of Wal-Mart have admitted as much. They stressed moving production to Asia in order to boost profits and raise stock prices. (PBS documentary on Wal-Mart. Google it.)

How does an admitted desire to boost profits and and raise stock prices necessarily equate with a rise in merchandise prices? In fact the opposite is true. Walmart has boosted it's profits and stock prices by continuously undercutting it's competitors.

 

[axiomata]

I want not so much free trade as the spirit of free trade for my country.* Free trade means a little more wealth; the spirit of free trade is a reform of the mind itself, that is to say, the source of all reforms.

-Bastiat

 

[therepublic]

Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance.


A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population.

So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.

This is not difficult to understand.

And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.

Being an anarchist does not disqualify you. Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words. I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.

 

[romacox]

Being an anarchist does not disqualify you. Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words. I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.

I don't totally agree with anarchy either, but their ideas are quite relevant. They help point out that government does not need to provide as many services as most of the rest of us think. But keeping it real is the only way to communicate with any possibility of understanding. Thanks proindividual, and therepublic

 

[ProIndividual]

Being an anarchist does not disqualify you. Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words. I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.

Thanks...I feel the same way. Sorry I inferred you disqualified me.

 

[ProIndividual]

Thanks proindividual, and therepublic

Thank you too romacox.

 

[romacox]

Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance.


A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population.

So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.

This is not difficult to understand.

And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.

ProIndividual, I have a question.

1. Don't all anarchists believe in no government what so ever...nada, zilch, or do some believe in a limited government? I am thinking that If there is no government at all there would be no government to donate to.

Here are the 18 enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution:
1. 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;

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and post roads

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I assume anarchists would do away with number one...the power to tax. Are there any others they would eliminate?

P.S. I am assuming that if there is no government, there is no need for a Constitution either. Is that correct?

 

[Fox McCloud]

I assume anarchists would do away with number one...the power to tax. Are there any others they would eliminate?

P.S. I am assuming that if there is no government, there is no need for a Constitution either. Is that correct?

2-18 would go as well...and yes, we anarchists believe that the Constitution is not needed...and, as a matter of fact, a gross abuse of state power in comparison to...say, the Articles of Confederation.

Going back to the Constitution, right now, would be amazing...but once we're there, we need to roll the Constitution itself back.

 

[showpan]

How does an admitted desire to boost profits and and raise stock prices necessarily equate with a rise in merchandise prices? In fact the opposite is true. Walmart has boosted it's profits and stock prices by continuously undercutting it's competitors.

I can go to Walmart and find higher prices on certain items than Ace Hardware for example. The only reason that Ace wasn't closed like the other smaller retail stores here was because they also sell lumber and hardware that Walmart doesn't sell. When Walmart opened here, they used cheaper prices to get rid of the competition. Once those stores closed, prices went up and are now higher than what those other stores were. As their prices went up, more and more people are now buying from the internet. This will soon change as sales taxes will become a reality for internet sales. Guess who lobbied for that?

 

[Fox McCloud]

I can go to Walmart and find higher prices on certain items than Ace Hardware for example. The only reason that Ace wasn't closed like the other smaller retail stores here was because they also sell lumber and hardware that Walmart doesn't sell. When Walmart opened here, they used cheaper prices to get rid of the competition. Once those stores closed, prices went up and are now higher than what those other stores were. As their prices went up, more and more people are now buying from the internet. This will soon change as sales taxes will become a reality for internet sales. Guess who lobbied for that?

(1) Predatory pricing isn't a very legit strategy and hasn't been practiced much as it's easily circumvented (ie: slowing your own business down and/or start buying their prodcuts and sell them at an ever so slight markup)....just try going to your manager and start telling him to sell things at a loss...I guarantee it won't go over well.

(2)Even if this did work, and they raised their prices once competition was gone, then the other businesses (or similar ones) could come back in and, again, undercut the person who engaged in predatory pricing+price raising...making the "predatory pricers" original goal a complete and total moot point.

Also, care to provide any evidence that Walmart is lobbying for it? It's not like they'd get off scott-clean, either--they have an internet branch, as well.

Take for example, the case of Herbert Dow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6dD-ifIr8s

 

[ProIndividual]

Anarchists believe in allowing others (minarchists) to have voluntary government, but will not voluntarily take part in them. In this meaning, anarchists are not opposed to government, they are opposed to the State (the monopoly on government, or the monopoly on the social contract). In fact, for 80% of human history we had no State, but did have government. Go to Wikipedia and search "stateless society", or "stateless", you should see what I mean. It's not that we say it's all peaches and cream without the State either...we say of evils, liberty is the lesser, of virtues it is the greater, in all things it is liberty that has the preferable results. All bad results exist, but to a lesser extent because there is no uniform effects widespread by force of threat of violence or law. No, anarchists are not out to abolish government (we want self government ourselves), we are out to abolish coercion, and therefore the State.

So you are free to fund your government, I'll fund mine (myself).

There doesn't need to be one monopolized social contract in one area deemed by whatever gang holds the power, and subverts the rest of the gangs. This concept of "gang turf" is how most of us (people in general) imagine government (holding a forced monopoly on a social contract within a certain geogrphic area). In minarchism and anarchism (simulatenously, as neither denies the other existance), there is no such turf. Borders are there to stop disease epidemics and violent people from entering the nation, not to deem the area in which a set of monopolized rules will be followed. The lowest standard for law is natural law, or "do no harm"...and anarchists wish for this to be enforced. We see the judiciary as beneficial when not monopolized. It's the other two branches we really question. If an anarchist harmed someone, that would be the standard of law to judge them, their lack of social contract deems "do no harm" the standard. With a minarchist, it's any standard they sign up for, assuming the punishments don't violate current social norms (you cannot cut off a hand for theft, for example). So minarchists can have social contracts, and anarchists don't have to. If the judiciary is funded by user fees, the anarchist will fund it when found guilty...the minarchy will fund it when the charges prove false. There will never be a world without willing particpants in government social contracts, and we don't wish to have one. Uniformity is only possible with coercion, something anarchism is opposed to.

There is no reason 3 people can't all live next to each other on a street, and still have 3 separate social contracts...you the Constitution, some liberal a socialist style contract, and me no contract at all. When the State's bully based monopoly on social contracts end, competition is allowed.

I wouldn't ban boxing, but I don't want to be assaulted. You can punch each other in the face, hell I might watch for entertainment, but stop punching me. Minarchy and anarchy combined is a boxing match (the boxers are minarchists, the audience the anarchists), the State is assault. See the difference? Also compare S&M sex to rape. You are free to harm yourself with any sadistic pleasure you like, whether S&M sex, boxing, or government...you aren't free to assualt me, rape me, or use the State to compel me.

Of those 18 powers, how many require growth to keep pace with population and our income per household? Notice if we shrink both, the government doesn't do the same (see nations where population shrank, like Japan after this recent disaster). Most of even those 18 things are not dependent directly on population or income of the citizenry percentagely, and yet the government grew and continued to raise taxes overall.

I's get rid of #2. Of course poor planning is the only reason a nation is run in deficit and debt, not surplus and reserves for emergencies. We should also run basically balanced budgets when a proper reserve is in place. I wrote about it elsewhere:


Ending Intergenerational Tyranny: Extinction of National Debt

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41726


Trade being managed by government in #3 implies protectionism, not free trade. Therefore, it implies a lack of respect for property rights (you may buy, sell, or hire anything or anyone you like, you're goods produced and cash alike are your property). No govt should need treaties to have free trade (free market capitalism). Why they would need to regulate trade is to hand out favors to certain domestic oligarchs, securing power at the expense of the consumers here. All regulation in trade, beyond fraud or harm, or what have you, is coercion of your property rights.

#4, bankruptcy is fine, natural;ization isn't needed if free trade exists in #3, as labor is a good of trade. Immigration is therefore a non-issue except for epidemic disease and violent people entering. Bankruptcy can be privatized I would suspect. No monopoly is necessary to function.

Famous quote :

"Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?"

That is a conflict that is "self evident", eh?


#5 is something Ron Paul wants to end, the monopoly on money. We have been advocating currency competition in the free market since the 1850s. The government doesn't make gold and silver money, this was money before governments deemed it so. So RP is right, end the FED, the monopoly on money, and allow open competition so the people can choose the currency of the lowest inflationary rate to protect their properties.

#6 goes with #5.

The psot office can be privatized in #7, as shown by anarchist Lysander Spooner, when he kicked the governments ass in first class mail in the USA until they outlawed competition. He is the reason you have mail delivered to your home, he invented it.

Why should the govt promote arts and science in #8? This is simply a misallocation of other peoples money. If sciences and arts are beneficial to man, they will have value in the market, and be bought. No theft is needed to pay for them, donations and prices will suffice. This, again, can be privatized anyway.

#9 can be privatized or a public/private partnership, or some open/closed bid process....no monopoly is required. Without the monopoly on social contracts, I have no issue with #9 in principle...all societies need an arbitar system to resolve disputes peacefully.

#10 is already privatized if you do not declare war, and instead use Letters of Marque and Reprisal. We do neither, as we don't follow the document at all. But assuming we privatize it, I'm okay with that...collective defense is okay, although coercing people to fight in wars they don't DIRECTLY consent to is not. I would vastly change our military to make it funded by donations and manned by action-specific volunteers (whether war, foreign aid, what have you). But collective self defense is a must, and hence the borders for disease and violent people.

#11, falls under #10. Except the declaration of war, all can be directly privatized. War can be too, but even if it isn't, wars won't happen without coerced troops ( they refuse now they go to jail), and coerced funds (taxed money from people who do not agree with the war or aid mission, as opposed to willing donors). The moral justification for your military event will disappear when your volunteers or funding does if you do it my way. So mostly, privatize 11#, but even if not fully, you can make it more voluntary and less coercive.

#12...notice we never disband after two years. Standing armies aren't legal NOW. I think we may require professional troops, like professional hostage situation trained police, but not as a mjority of our forces. Most of our forces should be either disbanded or made militia of the states, and therefore only committed to wars/aid missions by personal consent. The universal duty of full time soldiers will pay more than those who do not give universal consent to all wars/aid missions. So I'm against how we do things now, but 12 isn't that bad really....if followed. It can be privatized largely also (at the very least, private management would do them well). An unfunded army after the two years limit would...disband! Only full timers would remain.

#13 is far more important than #12, but again, can be privatized, and doesn't require forced funding.

#14 goes with the last two or so.

#15 would be by consent, but if so, it's okay. Even I might respond to a call for self defense, I'm no pascifist afterall. Almost none of our military actions are self defense though...most of them have been to force open trading markets on our victims, never intending to reciprocate. This was John Hay and Hamilton's "American School", or "American Plan" of economics. Violence for money, no consent. Obviously I'm against that, and a truely volunteer military (one fiunded voluntarily and one where troops volunteer for each operation separately) would prevent it largely.

#16 goes with the previous answers.

#17, I'm all for new States. It's the answer to the dumb question "what if all of Mexico wanted to emigrate here? Would you still want open borders?"...yes, I'd still want free trade of labor, but if they all wanted to come here, why not ask them to become a State? A voluntary social contract is fine by me, and despite it's drawbacks, the Constitution is better than most. I think the whole area and land part is irrelevant as I explained earlier, but if they MUST do it by land area (gand turf) by a government vote or something (gang), then so be it. Again, this is only an issue because the State demands a monopoly on social contracts. In my version, you could be a citizen of the U.sS. in another country like expatriates are now...except without being an expat! You'd just be in another location....the standard of law you are subject to is not land based, it's contractual! The rest is able to be privatized or at least privately managed without a monopoly.

#18 is okay, but only for those who consent to the social contract (the Constitution). If I do not consent, they have no authority. Read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. It explains what you require. If it does anything without consent, I'm against it.

If there is no government, there is no need for a Constituion, true...but I'm not saying there has to be NO government. I'm saying there has to be strctly consentual government (consentual self abuse) at most. The Constitution can remain, it just needs to become voluntary strictly, and then it is fine. You can even skip all my changes to 1-18, if you simply allow me to opt-out. My changes are to make the monopolized social contract more pallatable for me. If you allow me an option to get out, then you can keep all the compulsory sadism you please . We only need discuss changes in my favor BECAUSe of the monopoly the social contract enforces (with violence, or the threat thereof).

 

[Jace]

..

 

[showpan]

That's exactly what they did, raise their prices once the other stores had closed.....and now they pay the town to keep other competition out like Target just recently found out.
Walmart lobbying....It's all over the net....why not search for yourself sometime?

Clash of the retail titans: Wal-Mart lobbies for an ‘Amazon tax’
Wal-Mart is one of the main backers of the campaign – and it is a campaign – and is bent on ensuring that the world’s largest Internet retailer doesn’t become the world’s largest retailer, a perch held by Wal-Mart.

And this is what they lobbied for when it concerns our ports which is one of the reasons a new megaport is being built in Mexico and Mexican truckers will deliver straight to Walmart resulting in tens of thousands of more jobs lost.

Wal-Mart's dirty secret is out
In the past few years, Wal-Mart has:
Opposed the introduction of anti-terrorist "smart containers" and electronic seals for cargo containers coming into U.S. ports. The retail industry called them "feel good (security) measures."
Opposed independent and regular inspections of supply-chain security practices around the world.
Opposed tougher rules requiring Wal-Mart to let Customs know what it's shipping in and where it comes from.
Opposed new container-handling fees to pay for improved port security.
The corporate lobbyists at RILA boasted in a 2005 lobbying report to Wal-Mart and other retailers about its "continued industry leadership in opposition to ill-advised and onerous port security measures (i.e., cargo fees, increased physical inspections)." In fact, beating back meaningful port security measures topped RILA's agenda.
One of the United States' top port security experts, retired Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen Flynn, puts the cost of helping protect our ports at 0.2 percent of the value of cargo in the containers. The cost to Wal-Mart would be about $36 million -- less than one-third of 1 percent of the $11.2 billion profit the company raked in last year, or several million dollars less than CEO Lee Scott's pay over the past two years.
Wal-Mart and its corporate lobbyists have instead invested heavily in the members of Congress with the most sway over ports and supply-chain security issues, as well as the Bush administration and the Republican National Committee. Compare Wal-Mart's 2003-04 Washington campaign contributions with those of Target, its chief rival: Wal-Mart spent $2.7 million, putting it third on the list of top corporate contributors. Target spent $295,000, good for 192nd place.
RILA and Wal-Mart insist that making cargo containers and supply-chains secure against terrorist attacks be voluntary. The essence of this policy is "trust, but don't verify" and that's just the way Wal-Mart and RILA want to keep it.
The successes of Wal-Mart are made doubly dangerous by the shift of manufacturing work from the United States to developing countries. Twenty years ago, Wal-Mart bought only 6 percent of its merchandise overseas. Today, "Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture, and both are determined to dominate the U.S. economy as much as they can in a wide range of industries," Duke University professor Gary Geriffi told PBS's "Frontline."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opin...dirty-secret-is-out-1200317.php#ixzz1T0VcyaxV

 

[romacox]

Thank you ProIndividual for an honest insight into your political philosophy. It is more pleasant reading than the irrational postings of those who hide behind others words taken out of context. I often simply skip over those without even reading them.

If the economy does go belly up, we are likely to experience anarchy. Looking at recent history, I would predict that for some areas of the Country, it will be much like what we witnessed in Louisianan after Katrina, and for other areas much like we witnessed in Nashville after the flooding there. When Rome fell, areas that had become dependent on others suffered greatly. However areas like Constantinople thrived for another 1000 years.

History also reveals that when Empires fall, foreign invaders begin to take advantage by looting assets and resources. This was seen after the fall of the Minoans, Roman Empire, Constantinople, ext. Interestingly enough the early American colonies joined forces not only to stand against England, but they had been taken advantage by foreign Nations, and even the larger colonies took advantage of the smaller ones. So the Unification strengthened them to stand against such forces.

However, as Jace points out, Woodrow Wilson invited those foreign powers right into the seat of our government when he established the Federal Reserve. Government certainly is an enemy that citizens failed to keep control of. It is much like having a guard dog...he certainly can be an asset, but one had better keep control of him. But my research reveals that the Federal Reserve is now our government controlling every aspect of our lives...even our political leaders.

Personally, I believe the Constitution should have more restrictions on the power of the Government to tax. However Woodrow Wilson increased that power considerably in the XVI Amendment.