Tariffs Are A War On American Consumers

[CCTelander]

It's the first thing he says at 11:00.
He says it adds fuel to the fire of inflation.

You aren't replying to the rest because you can't, it's all fact, free trade is anti-liberty.

You’re lying again. As I noted above, Ron SPECIFICALLY STATED that tariffs DO NOT cause inflation. The “adds fuel” comment was explained to mean that the higher prices caused by tariffs all by themselves add to the consumers burden when added to the higher prices caused by inflation. NOWHERE did Ron even I’m-ly that tariffs in any way cause inflation.

As for the rest, your claims have been dealt with by myself and several others multiple times. Fletcher got it all wrong and his book is fit for composting and that’s about it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You’re lying again. As I noted above, Ron SPECIFICALLY STATED that tariffs DO NOT cause inflation. The “adds fuel” comment was explained to mean that the higher prices caused by tariffs all by themselves add to the consumers burden when added to the higher prices caused by inflation. NOWHERE did Ron even I’m-ly that tariffs in any way cause inflation.

As for the rest, your claims have been dealt with by myself and several others multiple times. Fletcher got it all wrong and his book is fit for composting and that’s about it.

People can watch it for themselves and hear the truth.
They can also understand the logic in my arguments whether you deny it or not.

 

[CCTelander]

People can watch it for themselves and hear the truth.
They can also understand the logic in my arguments whether you deny it or not.

Yes, people CAN watch it for themselves. Ironically enough, and unfortunately so wrt your claims, Ron is making the same exact point in this video that I tried to make in that last thread on this topic, namely that the higher prices invariably caused by protectionist tariffs, ON TOP OF the increased prices caused by monetary inflation are really putting the squeeze on American consumers. You tried to disingenuously claim that I said that tariffs caused inflation in that one. At least you’re a consistent liar.

 

[acptulsa]

You aren't replying to the rest because you can't, it's all fact, free trade is anti-liberty.

With the possible exception of Canada and Mexico, and certain things like software, foreign production requires significant additional transportation costs. If you want to find a reason why that cost isn't prohibitive, you can buy a clue at your local OSHA office.

Once again, you're demanding draconian top-down policies as band aids to staunch the bleeding caused by other draconian top-down policies.

 

[CCTelander]

With the possible exception of Canada and Mexico, and certain things like software, foreign production requires significant additional transportation costs. If you want to find a reason why that cost isn't prohibitive, you can buy a clue at your local OSHA office.

Once again, you're demanding draconian top-down policies as band aids to staunch the bleeding caused by other draconian top-down policies.

Well, what else would one expect? After all, Swordy is a “draconian top-down” kind of guy.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, what else would one expect? After all, Swordy is a “draconian top-down” kind of guy.

Innovation comes from the bottom up. MAGA is therefore fundamentally flawed at its very heart. Government has never made America great, cannot make America great, and will never make it great again. Is Cuba great? These hand-wringers run around screeching that America can't compete with Chinese slave labor, but why aren't they willing to give it a go?

They have no faith in freedom. The South lost the war because it had never been able to compete with the North. Which one had slavery? Britain ruled the world for a century after abolishing slavery. We competed the USSR into the dustbin of history when we were about as free as anyone has been in the industrial age.

They can see the "advantage" of slave labor but don't see the costs associated with keeping them on the plantation. They don't seem to have the eyes and the imagination to see the advantages of freedom and the innovation it fosters. They don't see that while the South was busy maintaining slavery, the free people of the North were inventing more perfect slaves -- machinery. Just to offer one example.

Republicans mutter, there oughta be a law. The difference between the majority of Republicans and libertarians is that libertarians have faith in freedom. It isn't something we just pay lip service to. We know in our hearts that, on a macro level, it works best. And do you know what? That's the difference between libertarians and liberals, too. Then neither of them can begin to understand the mind-bending concept that they have more in common with each other than either has with us.

It's going to be Republicans who ultimately throw the Constitution in the trash. Wait and see.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Starts at about 11:00.
He's saying tariffs are bad and cause inflation.

Tariffs do not cause inflation, money printing causes inflation and deindustrialization causes money printing.
...

Ok, here's the exact quote:

"Tariffs are bad because they push prices up, but those prices are going up because of bad policy, which adds fuel to the fire of the inflation of the devaluation of the currency."

First of all, we need to be conscious of the use of the word "inflation". For most people, "inflation" refers to price inflation. But Ron did not use the word "inflation". He said "push prices up". That is specific. It means price inflation, which can have many causes. Monetary inflation causes prices to go up. Taxes cause the price to go up. High demand and/or low supply causes prices to go up. It's just basic economics.

Ron Paul refers to both a tax increase in the form of tariffs causing prices to go up, in addition to monetary inflation causing prices to go up.

I see nothing inaccurate or wrong about what Ron just said.

And more importantly, Chris Rossini responds and points out that taxes never go down. Ron Paul's POTUS campaigns included a call for a flat tariff to replace and abolish the income tax. If that were to be partially put into policy, then for every increase in tariffs, there should be a corresponding decrease in income tax to offset. That would be acceptable. Even better to abolish the income tax.

In terms of trade wars, sanction wars, cold wars, and real wars, those will often include tariffs and embargos, which will disrupt international trade, and like all war, should be avoided.

The global race to the bottom and the rise of the global kleptocratic plutocracy is a different problem. That is a war that has been and is being waged upon average people around the world, whether it is elimination of the working middle class in America, or the use of slave and child labor in China. That is a problem, but I doubt a few individual tariffs here or there will solve that one.

 

[CaptUSA]

I am in favor of tariffs as a means in which to fund limited government functions and to encourage domestic growth, manufacturing and production.

I consider Ron a national treasure, a statesman of epic proportions, all while being humble, soft spoken and mild mannered.

We disagree on this position.

I don't want to give up on you because once you understand this, it becomes obvious and you can no longer see it the other way. Protectionist tariffs hamper domestic growth, manufacturing and production. First, because politicians are incentivized to help their elite donors and it requires bureaucrats to monitor and implement correctly. Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production. Since those industries are harmed at a greater rate (though, it's dispersed), the overall growth is lower than it would have been otherwise.

I understand it sounds counterintuitive at first, but lots of libertarian thinking does. But once you see what's happening at the big picture, it's hard to fall back. Please don't give up on learning about this.

 

[PAF]

...the use of slave and child labor in China. That is a problem, but I doubt a few individual tariffs here or there will solve that one.

I agree with most of your post, except for the last sentence. Here again, who decides?

Not trying to derail, I believe there is another thread where this has been raised, but I do hear comments every so often that tariffs will help "mitigate" this, which should not be justification at all.

[snip]

There is a distinction between a child that is working and a child that is being exploited through work and a child that is being forced to work. In many countries, children are a necessary part of the economic structure of their family and take on a job while still under parental protection and work in suitable conditions.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/...hild-labourer-exploited-child-and-child-slave

 

[Invisible Man]

Even if you support tariffs, you should also support having them be voluntary. They shouldn't be imposed on people who don't support them.

If we didn't have tariffs, those of you who support them could (and would, provided you are sincere) just voluntarily send extra money to the government every time you buy something from someone from a different country.

I'm sure that all of you who think tariffs are too low have already been doing this, unless you don't really mean what you say.

 

[oyarde]

Even if you support tariffs, you should also support having them be voluntary. They shouldn't be imposed on people who don't support them.

If we didn't have tariffs, those of you who support them could (and would, provided you are sincere) just voluntarily send extra money to the government every time you buy something from someone from a different country.

I'm sure that all of you who think tariffs are too low have already been doing this, unless you don't really mean what you say.

lol

 

[acptulsa]

I'm sure that all of you who think tariffs are too low have already been doing this, unless you don't really mean what you say.

Probably about the same percentage as of compassionate liberals who give to charity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't want to give up on you because once you understand this, it becomes obvious and you can no longer see it the other way. Protectionist tariffs hamper domestic growth, manufacturing and production. First, because politicians are incentivized to help their elite donors and it requires bureaucrats to monitor and implement correctly. Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production. Since those industries are harmed at a greater rate (though, it's dispersed), the overall growth is lower than it would have been otherwise.

I understand it sounds counterintuitive at first, but lots of libertarian thinking does. But once you see what's happening at the big picture, it's hard to fall back. Please don't give up on learning about this.

Yet you can not ignore the other side of the equation. The push for offshoring, outsourcing and importing cheaper labor has always been driven by the government and the elite global cronies who have their ears. They have not been doing it for the benefit of the consumer. St. Greenspan himself admitted that the entire purpose was to enable monetary inflation (and govt deficit spending) and offset it by lowering labor costs. The crony corporatists wanted it to lower their costs and increase profits.

What has happened is not free trade. There is nothing organic about it. It was done for the exclusive benefit of the govt, and the elite crony corporatists. We have a fully managed trade system, run by a kleptocracy.

 

[CaptUSA]

Yet you can not ignore the other side of the equation. The push for offshoring, outsourcing and importing cheaper labor has always been driven by the government and the elite global cronies who have their ears. They have not been doing it for the benefit of the consumer. St. Greenspan himself admitted that the entire purpose was to enable monetary inflation (and govt deficit spending) and offset it by lowering labor costs. The crony corporatists wanted it to lower their costs and increase profits.

What has happened is not free trade. There is nothing organic about it. It was done for the exclusive benefit of the govt, and the elite crony corporatists. We have a fully managed trade system, run by a kleptocracy.

Per usual, you don’t fix a government problem with more government. That being said, efficiencies increase profits AND consumer value. They both would have increased MORE without government meddling.

 

[TheTexan]

Second, because it harms the American consumer who then has fewer dollars to spend on other industries which also require manufacturing and production.

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

 

[PAF]

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

I need 30. I will use the $300 saved to hire the caterer for a small gathering at my place. Otherwise, I don't need or want 30 lawn chairs if I can't afford the caterer. Plus, the 30 from China have those neat little drink holders on the side, the American ones don't.

No, I don't care to go broke, for the betterment of others.

 

[TheTexan]

No, I don't care to go broke, for the betterment of others.

Fair enough

 

[PAF]

Fair enough

And now that I have the cheaper/better lawn chairs, I can have gatherings more often, which puts money into the local caterers in my area, keeping them in business.

 

[TheTexan]

And now that I have the cheaper/better lawn chairs, I can have gatherings more often, which puts money into the local caterers in my area, keeping them in business.

Fair point. I didn't take that into consideration

 

[CaptUSA]

This is flawed logic and I can demonstrate so.

Imagine that:
James Dean has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $20 labor, $10 dollars profit for $70 each
Li Zhao has a lawn chair factory and he sells lawn chairs at $40 material cost, $10 labor, $10 dollars profit for $60 each

If I buy a lawn chair from Li Zhao the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
2) Li Zhao gains $10
3) $50 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in China

If I buy a lawn chair from James the net result is:
1) Me and James (collectively) gain 1 lawn chair and we lose $60
3) $60 goes to third parties for material and labor -- in America

As you can see above, if you assume that materlal costs and profit margins are the same, and the main differentiating factor in foreign trade is labor, nothing is "gained" from foreign trade. Much more is lost, when you take into account the vast majority of the $ value that is spent on an item, will go to neither of the parties that are conducting the trade, but instead goes to the nation from which the product was purchased.

What this demonstrates, is that what may be best for the individual (saving $10 dollars) is not always what's best for the group (exporting $60 to a foreign economy).

If you don't care about "the group" I can respect that but it doesn't change the math as to how it affects the group.

A few things...

First, you are forgetting about the $40 of unused material that James still has if you bought this chair from Li Zhao. That material can be used to serve other needs. It is wealth that was not consumed.

Secondly, the $10 I saved will be spent on something else. So in addition to the chair and James' unused materials, I can also buy $10 more worth of other goods someplace else. Let's say a haircut. Now I have a chair and a nice haircut and James still has his materials to sell elsewhere. And my barber has one more client that day.

Finally, there's the case of what Li needs to do to make his FRN's worth anything. He needs to circulate them back to the US.

So, for $70 I have a chair and a haircut, James still has his materials, my barber Jim is gainfully employed and Li has an incentive to turn his FRN's into usable goods or services.

If I bought from James, I'd have a chair and James would have $20 for his labor and $10 to spend elsewhere, but his materials are gone.

I know this is a simplistic analogy, but the math still works out.