Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

[Paul Or Nothing II]

There is nothing left to debate. And you will find few people who will want to debate you considering your debate STYLE. Perhaps you might try HuffPo or Redstate for a change of pace? Please don't tell them you are a Ron Paul supporter.

Again, still no refutation of my arguments based on sound economics lol, now you're just embarrassing yourself LMAO YOU don't tell anyone that you're a "Ron Paul supporter" because Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of REAL free-trade & he's FOR property-rights & NOT socialist-corporatist THIEF like you people. May be you should support Obama, as has been seen, he doesn't mind retaliatory tariffs

RON PAUL ON TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE​

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2264522316G10020&contributor=Ron+Paul

It’s easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.

(In the first sentence, he's clearly referring to the argument I've made that the the displacement of ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that's caused by imposing ADDITIONAL COSTS which suck out capital from OTHER AREAS of the economy, which means MORE JOBS ARE LOST than the ones created due to tariffs & thereby LOWER production & good/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards for the country as a whole)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2264302086G10020&contributor=Ron+Paul

The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes- I want to get the federal government out of your pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.

 

[Seraphim]

Winner.

Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.

That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.

They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.

I thought the whole point of the RP movement was to NOT fall for false dichotomy's and to REFUSE to choose betweem the lesser of evils.

Tariffs are just less offensive forms of taxation...but it is still taxation.

I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.

But slapping arbitrary tax/tariff costs is not condusive to raising living standards, peace or prosperity.

Goods coming across Nation State lines is a far greater scenario than armies.

Again, still no refutation of my arguments based on sound economics lol, now you're just embarrassing yourself LMAO YOU don't tell anyone that you're a "Ron Paul supporter" because Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of REAL free-trade & he's FOR property-rights & NOT socialist-corporatist THIEF like you people. May be you should support Obama, as has been seen, he doesn't mind retaliatory tariffs

RON PAUL ON TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE​

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2264522316G10020&contributor=Ron+Paul

(In the first sentence, he's clearly referring to the argument I've made that the the displacement of ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that's caused by imposing ADDITIONAL COSTS which suck out capital from OTHER AREAS of the economy, which means MORE JOBS ARE LOST than the ones created due to tariffs & thereby LOWER production & good/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards for the country as a whole)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html


http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2264302086G10020&contributor=Ron+Paul

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Winner.

Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.

That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.

They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.

I thought the whole point of the RP movement was to NOT fall for false dichotomy's and to REFUSE to choose betweem the lesser of evils.

Tariffs are just less offensive forms of taxation...but it is still taxation.

I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.

But slapping arbitrary tax/tariff costs is not condusive to raising living standards, peace or prosperity.

Goods coming across Nation State lines is a far greater scenario than armies.

+1

Yes, that's the point. That Ron Paul FUNDAMENTALLY against tariffs because he understands economics & that tariffs actually destroy more jobs than they create & reduce real wealth in the economy.

Of course, neither I nor I presume any other free trader here would mind a NOMINAL, NON-RETALIATORY tariff FOR NOW nor would we even mind a NOMINAL income-tax FOR NOW or any other tax for that matter as long as they're considerably reduced & this is UNTIL the debt is paid off ASAP (by possibly passing a legislation banning issuance of debt for the moment) BUT the point is that EVENTUALLY we want to be free of ALL taxes because they're THEFT & violation of people's property-rights & if people want a government then they should be charitable enough to donate for it.

The point of this whole argument is to make it crystal-clear that tariffs DON'T confer ANY benefits to the country, they just displace capital & create more unemployment while lowering living standards for the country as a whole. Too many people here, like in the mainstream, don't understand economics in its entirety & therefore, support tariffs as a violent measure against their own fellow citizens as well as against people in other countries, this sort of behavior is no different that socialists/communists who want to use FORCE against others "to do good".

A lot of people here like to talk about the Constitution but I believe the Declaration of Independence was the real thing, that's what declared that we were free from the fetters of government & its THIEVERY of taxation & that's why it did NOT contain any powers to tax, people were TRULY FREE & that's what we must aim for EVENTUALLY & it's important set the tone for that RIGHT NOW by opposing oppression & theft at every level irrespective of how small or big it may be.

 

[libertyjam]

I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.

#1 The only point PONII has is the one on the top of his head.

#2 I did not post here to say that, it just slipped out. Rather, what about not just using local facilities, but Foreign States building entire cities on US soil?

China Wants to Build a 50 Square Mile City in the US
also
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...ile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html
Note the best jobs won't be going to Americans.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.

That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.

They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.
...
Tariffs are just less offensive forms of taxation...but it is still taxation.

I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.

Very good, we are all in agreement then. I wish that other people would enthusiastically join me in opposition to income taxes.

Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference.

Tariffs are the lesser of multiple evils, to fund a government that is not going away, with some benefits over other options like income taxes.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

#1 The only point PONII has is the one on the top of his head.

#2 I did not post here to say that, it just slipped out. Rather, what about not just using local facilities, but Foreign States building entire cities on US soil?

China Wants to Build a 50 Square Mile City in the US
also
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...ile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html
Note the best jobs won't be going to Americans.

More childish insults from THIEVES who can't refute my arguments based on economics. That's all you people've got anyway, no facts to back up your conjecture.

Very good, we are all in agreement then. I wish that other people would enthusiastically join me in opposition to income taxes.

No, we're NOT all in agreement. He said he's AGAINST tariffs & so is Ron Paul because it's NOT beneficial to anyone & I'm guessing you're still protectionist tariffer who believes "tariffs create jobs"

And it's really pathetic to bring in income-tax every time to show tariffs to be the "lesser evil". Who gives a shit, it's evil nonetheless. It's like saying, hey, let's settle for Romney over Obama or vice versa, we're saying NO to BOTH, we're saying we don't want the "lesser evil", we want Ron Paul.

The is an issue of principles & where each one of us stands on the ideas of freedom & people's rights to life, liberty & PROPERTY.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

More childish insults from THIEVES who can't refute my arguments based on economics. That's all you people've got anyway, no facts to back up your conjecture.

Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.

 

[therepublic]

Just goes to show that these people are not only ignorant of economics but just OUTRIGHT LIARS. They can't even stand firm on their own words lol

They repeatedly keep bringing NAFTA in the same breath as free trade EVEN THOUGH it's been pointed out a million times that NAFTA is NOT free trade, & just calling it "free trade agreement" does NOT make it free trade in the same sense that Patriot Act is NOT about patriotism & America is NOT capitalist even though people say so.

These people are anti-property rights, anti-free trade, anti-free markets, anti-capitalism & pro-government intervention, pro-tariffs, pro-socialism & corporatism, & these people are supposed to be Ron Paul supporters? LMAO

Not to mention, they're YET to produce any cogent argument based on sound economics, they can't refute the economic arguments put forth to support free trade, hell, they don't even understand the basic laws of supply & demand which are on view in every-day life

If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger...Exactly the same tactics used by the establishment against Ron Paul.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.

Spending 27 pages claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is in on an international conspiracy theory, throwing insults, and failing to address the actual topic is SO mature, and worth discussing anything with.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.

Well, it's OBVIOUS that you don't want to admit the truth & its OBVIOUS that you support thievery for the PURPORTED benefits which you can't even argue for based on sound economics so YOU are being intellectually dishonest by NOT admitting the fact that you don't understand economics. YOU are being dishonest by NOT admitting that tariff-tax is just as much THIEVERY as any other tax.

If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger...Exactly the same tactics used by the establishment against Ron Paul.

What message? That STEALING is good? I've quoted Ron Paul himself & even he does NOT agree with you so throwing his name in doesn't lend any credibility to you anyway.

Let me ask again, where's the refutation to my explanation based on sound economics? You've no "message", just gossip, conjecture & hearsay, NO FACTUAL ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS.

As I've said earlier, would it be fair for someone to argue over anatomy even though they can't come up with actual argument based on that science? Would it fair for someone to argue over engineering even though they can't come up with arguments based on engineering itself? Well, I hope not. So how can you people hope to argue economics without basing your arguments on sound economics? You shouldn't expect to be taken seriously until you make your case with sound economic arguments, NOT on gossip, conjecture or ".......because Founders said so" arguments.

And as I've said many a times, Founders LIED to American people by calling tariff-tax an "external tax" as if to say that they weren't being taxed when in fact they were, Founders didn't know about fractional-reserve-banking, they couldn't even understand the basic economic laws of supply & demand that well otherwise they wouldn't've had fixed-bimetalism under the Coinage Act of 1792; they were good philosophers no doubt BUT they were NOT ECONOMISTS so it's preposterous to reject, WITHOUT cogent proof, the Austrian Economics to which we all owe so much our knowledge regarding Fed & central-banking, for people who didn't even have the comprehensive understanding of economics.

Spending 27 pages claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is in on an international conspiracy theory, throwing insults, and failing to address the actual topic is SO mature, and worth discussing anything with.

^^

 

[ProIndividual]

We won...protectionism is a failure, tariffs like all taxes hurt the economy, and all tax is essentially theft in any consistant moral theory.

Free trade and free markets (can't have one without the other) win again.

But I have to say...even as all the economic evidence was ignored...how can you trample Constitutional property rights so whimsicly? I mean, not many people understand economics, so I can forgive that easily enough...but you seemingly gloss over the fact there is no way for a government to enforce such thefts and coercions in trade without absolutely, unequivocally, trampling individual property rights. The fact this wasn't the MAIN focus of the debate for those in favor of protectionism says quite a bit...given that they were failing so badly at the economic arguments. I mean, why get pummeled on the data, when you are soooo sure of the morality of this approach?

Because you knew full well what you were arguing for trampled individual rights...

...and you didn't care.

All for "the good of the collective", right?

And as we showed, it isn't even good for the collective economically.

PWNED.

 

[showpan]

Who won? The 17 MILLION people who are out of work in this country with no hope of ever getting a job again under the current policies, or the CEO's of a few multinational corporations and the millionairess politicians who they have brought and promised jobs.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Who won? The 17 MILLION people who are out of work in this country with no hope of ever getting a job again under the current policies, or the CEO's of a few multinational corporations and the millionairess politicians who they have brought and promised jobs.

No, the other 34 MILLION that'll be losing there jobs because of displacement of capital to meet ADDITIONAL COSTS of tariffs & higher incomes as well as rest of the populace who'll be FORCED to pay HIGHER prices & LOWER living standard, they won.

Typical communist/socialist propaganda, "Oh, we must kill the bourgeois & then we'll all be rich because "money" is wealth, NOT goods/services" That's all communists/socialists have, an APPEAL TO EMOTIONS but NO ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS to back up their stance.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

Tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

As for the 17 million, government needs to repeal minimum-wage laws, cut taxes & stop issuing new debt, & as that capital is left in the private sector, it'll will automatically create jobs for them; it's the government that's keeping them unemployed so creating more unemployment by merely displacing capital & raising prices through tariffs will only make things WORSE.

 

[Jace]

..

 

[Bossobass]

Jace,

The free traders don't want to hear about reality. They'd rather tell you what Ron Paul believes and rant on about some wet dream that's never gonna happen while their standard of living slowly sinks into oblivion.

You know, no government, no monetary system, no taxes, no national defense, etc. But, lots and lots of property rights, you know, like the gangs of New York.

For the record, Ron Paul is not an ignorant ranter. He vehemently opposes "Free Trade" but supports free trade. He opposes tariffs, but he supports tariffs. He wants small government but supports strong national defense. He wants to get rid of TSA and CIA and all of the Departments, but he's not an anarchist who wants to rewrite the Constitution, as the Free Traders do.

Lower taxes
Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!" He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts. He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

For the Free Trader ranting lunatics, if you're going to resort to quoting Ron Paul to "win" your pointless argument, please try to get it right. RP is against protectionist tariffs, but he isn't completely devoid of the ability to think. Government needs revenue to operate. Excise taxes for infrastructure and tariffs are what Ron Paul would rely on to fund government, assuming he would be able to accomplish the mammoth task of whittling down the current size of government to get it to the point where those funds would be adequate without deficit borrowing and income taxes.

Free Trade; yeah, thank god you still have your credit cards, can lease an SUV and move into a house with zero down and a net worth of minus $15,000. Enjoy it while it lasts.

"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

Free Trade with MFN China = EPIK FAIL. Anyone out there disputing that?

While they've skinned you alive you spout some babble about property rights and the Anarchist Mo Different Free Trade Organization Of Utopian What-Ifs.

But... of course, you somehow win in the forums of ideas, far, far from reality. Congratulations.

Bosso

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

What the Welsh tin plate manufacturers did in the 1800s has been happening in industry after industry in the United States, from textiles, to furniture, to ship building, to steel, to electronics.

A foreign government targets an industry and subsidizes it while protecting it from foreign competition at home. Subsidies allow the foreign companies to export into the American market and sell below cost. This drives efficient American producers from the market as consumers buy the cheaper foreign goods. Once the American competition is eliminated, the foreign companies raise prices.

Our free trade policy has allowed foreign manufacturers to stifle or eliminate American industry and weaken our free enterprise system, which had provided us with one of the highest standards of living in the world.[/QUOTE]

We don't have free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc is NOT free trade, get that through your thick skulls. It's corporatized regulated trade & if you don't believe that then you're essentially saying that Ron Paul is a liar



And let's say for a moment that other countries are "conspiring against us to steal our industries", so if they're selling cheap then that's good for Americans, that allows Americans to have better living standards as well as SAVE MORE which means there's MORE CAPITAL to create jobs WITHIN America. If foreigners raise prices then American industries would be back in business again because that's what businesses do they follow higher profits but what's stopping them? THE GOVERNMENT, that enacts "regulations" & trade agreements allows big corps to corporatize the system so it's the problem of government NOT the policy of free trade, and guess what, who administers tariffs? THE SAME CURRUPT GOVERNMENT. So your basic argument is that government is destroying America so we need to give EVEN MORE POWER to the government, what kind of ridiculous argument is that?

Further, why are people so blind to facts that those countries that put import-tariffs & devalue their currency to raise exports are essentially ROBBING their people, keeping their living standards low for the benefit of the government & its corporatist buddies & you want US government to engage in such corporatism too? Again, a ridiculous argument.

Further, where does the ADDITIONAL CAPITAL comes from? WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOURSELF THAT or is baseless arguments is all you've got & no brain to think for yourself.

And one fundamental economic question that you people always tend to sidestep is that let's say Chinese workers are producing something at $5 & Americans produce the same for $10 & let's say tariffs are raised to offer protection to the extent needed then that ADDITIONAL COST of $5 produces NOTHING, it just goes into the pockets of those employees & then they bid up the prices of EXISTING goods/services. On the other hand, if there are no import-barriers then that $5 of capital goes in OTHER AREAS of the economy & helps produce jobs, goods/services there & thereby helps reduce prices there as well as the fact that prices are lower due to cheaper imports so there are generally MORE goods/services in the economy & LOWER prices than they otherwise would be & therefore every $ buys MORE stuff in general than it OTHERWISE would've.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Jace,

The free traders don't want to hear about reality. They'd rather tell you what Ron Paul believes and rant on about some wet dream that's never gonna happen while their standard of living slowly sinks into oblivion.

Oh! I've heard this before! Where? From socialist & Democrats who keep saying, "oh, the REALITY is very different, free markets don't work, freedom doesn't work, that's why need government to STEAL money from some people & give it to others"

You know, no government, no monetary system, no taxes, no national defense, etc. But, lots and lots of property rights, you know, like the gangs of New York.

Stop rambling & generalizing, I'm a minarchist so I've NEVER said about no government or no national defense.

And you want the Fed & government to have "monetary system", right? Typical socialist/communist. That was the 5th plank on Communist Manifesto lol

And you want taxes, right? Well you've plenty of them right now? So I hope you're enjoying every bit of that LMAO

Oh, so you don't like property-rights, right? Again, it's typical communist/socialist thinking. Being anti-property-rights really exposes you people for the commies that you are.

For the record, Ron Paul is not an ignorant ranter. He vehemently opposes "Free Trade" but supports free trade. He opposes tariffs, but he supports tariffs. He wants small government but supports strong national defense. He wants to get rid of TSA and CIA and all of the Departments, but he's not an anarchist who wants to rewrite the Constitution, as the Free Traders do.

YOU PEOPLE are ignorant ranters & so deluded that you can't even read the fact that Ron Paul opposes the "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA & SO DO FREE TRADERS HERE & he opposes tariffs too & there are no two ways about that.

Ron Paul does NOT believe in the infallibility of the Founders or the Constitution, he's made that clear. He's against the part of 5th Amendment which allows for Eminent Domain BECAUSE he belives in property-rights & he does NOT support tariffs. READ IF YOU CAN.

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=2264302086G10020&contributor=Ron+Paul

The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well.

He believes in free market & you commies don't & it's that simple

In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.

He believes in a FREE SOCIETY, not Constitutionalized society.

And guess what, there's a things called Amendment in the Constitution. Founders put that in because they wanted future generations to make changes in the Constitution as they see fit, BASED ON REASON like Founders did to the best of their ability & knowledge of the time; they'll be appalled by seeing you cultists drones who can't use their brains or reason.

For the Free Trader ranting lunatics, if you're going to resort to quoting Ron Paul to "win" your pointless argument, please try to get it right. RP is against protectionist tariffs, but he isn't completely devoid of the ability to think. Government needs revenue to operate. Excise taxes for infrastructure and tariffs are what Ron Paul would rely on to fund government, assuming he would be able to accomplish the mammoth task of whittling down the current size of government to get it to the point where those funds would be adequate without deficit borrowing and income taxes.

May be lunatic commies should LEARN TO READ others' posts before posting & realize that it's ALREADY been acknowledged that Ron Paul simply can't get rid of all the taxes immediately & that we'll be fine FOR THE MOMENT with NON-RATALIATORY tariffs but the point is that Ron Paul is NOT an idiot like illiterate commies here who believe that tariffs "create jobs", NO, he's smart enough to understand that tariffs KILL JOBS MORE JOBS in other industries than they create in the protected industries & that they're an economic stupidity nonetheless.

You don't realize that government such out nearly 40% of the US economy (link) & if you put tariffs & raise prices then that's going to EVEN MORE capital out of private sector, meaning the reduced capital merely moves from OTHER AREAS of the economy into the protected areas so it merely causes MORE UNEMPLOYMENT.

It's a question of PRINCIPLES which commies obviously have NONE or the ability to think for themselves, they just follow like mindless drones by making cultist arguments on the lines of ".......because Founders said so", ".......Founders were omniscient deities who can't be wrong"

Free Trade; yeah, thank god you still have your credit cards, can lease an SUV and move into a house with zero down and a net worth of minus $15,000. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I know you live on the street but try NOT to put EVEN MORE Americans on the street with your baseless support for tariff-tax

Free Trade with MFN China = EPIK FAIL. Anyone out there disputing that?

You don't even have the commonsense to understand that producing those same goods in America will massively raise prices & reduce goods/services & make America POORER quicker than it already is getting due to commies like you & your socialism.

While they've skinned you alive you spout some babble about property rights and the Anarchist Mo Different Free Trade Organization Of Utopian What-Ifs.

Again, I know commies hate property-rights, that's only too obvious lol And there's no such thing as "free trade organization" needed for free trade, you don't even understand what you're arguing against lol

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

We don't need government agreements to have free trade.

But... of course, you somehow win in the forums of ideas, far, far from reality. Congratulations.

Bosso

Again, that's exactly what commies always say that "reality is different" so we must "help people" by allowing the government to STEAL. But it's funny that you commies keep whining about banks ROBBING us dry but you don't mind it when YOU get to ROB others. What hypocrites!

 

[The Grinning Maniac]

And let's say for a moment that other countries are "conspiring against us to steal our industries", so if they're selling cheap then that's good for Americans, that allows Americans to have better living standards as well as SAVE MORE which means there's MORE CAPITAL to create jobs WITHIN America.

So the person who used to have a middle class manufacturing or white collar job, who now works at a service job with a substantially reduced salary....can save up more money than he could before.

Got it.

One last question. This Wal-Mart employee who is making so much money now; when he starts his new business with his glut of savings, how does he stay in business and produce jobs if low-wage countries can undercut him and drive him out of the market?

Also please stop calling people names.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

So the person who used to have a middle class manufacturing or white collar job, who now works at a service job with a substantially reduced salary....can save up more money than he could before.

Got it.

One last question. This Wal-Mart employee who is making so much money now; when he starts his new business with his glut of savings, how does he stay in business and produce jobs if low-wage countries can undercut him and drive him out of the market?

So let me guess, so because wal-mart employee is shit worker with no skill so his skill gets him a low salary so he should get to STEAL from others? Wonderful! What is NOT communist/socialist about that? This is the whole basis of it that people are "entitled" to ROB others because they're poor or they don't've skills, such philosophy only brings misery for the whole of the society in the end as can be seen in the United Socialist States of America & rest of the socialist Western countries.

And you know WITHOUT that capital being saved due to cheaper imports, you know where that "wal-mart employee" would be right now? ON THE STREETS. Because as the prices rise due to tariffs & higher costs, people bearing those costs will compete for higher incomes & since higher-skilled workers have more bargainign-power than lower-skilled ones, MORE LOWER-SKILLED WORKERS will be laid off to accommodate for the higher salaries & there'll MORE misery but that's what socialists/communists never care to notice & learn about, they think they can dictate the markets & engage in central-planning, no different than central-bankers.

And I've said over & over, government needs to stop sucking out so much out of the economy & markets need to be deregulated & allow the capital to remain in the private sector, that'll allow for goods/services & thereby make them cheaper so even if NOMINAL wages drop, REAL wages will be going up as every $ will buy more goods/services than it otherwise would've. You can't solve the problems caused by over-regulation & over-taxation & destruction of capital with more regulation & more taxation & more destruction of capital, you're liable to make things MUCH WORSE than they already are.

Also please stop calling people names.

START READING others' comments, others haven't been that polite, have they?

 

[showpan]

So let me guess, so because wal-mart employee is shit worker with no skill so his skill gets him a low salary so he should get to STEAL from others?

My wife had to take a fucking job at Walmart, they are the only ones who are hiring due to their high turnover rate. She was one of those 17 million just as I am and at least we completed school, unlike you, drop out loser. If it weren't for unemployment, I would probably be working there too. My Aunt is a real estate agent with a BA who had no choice to take one of their low paying part time shit jobs because some greedy investors decided to create a bubble and destroy the housing market. I have been to Birthday parties and outings with other Walmart employees and a lot of them had decent paying jobs and more skills than you will ever hope to have with your fucking attitude, kid. Many of them were retired and had to return to work because they couldn't afford retirement. Now I know why you are online so much running your mouth. Talk like that gets your ass kicked around other people who have to do what ever it takes to put food on the table. Why don't you go on down to Walmart and tell them what you think.