Posted on 07/08/2016 6:43:04 AM PDT by ChessExpert
Another example of failing to think beyond stage one is with the tariff and quota protections given to the U.S. sugar industry... Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours. By moving to Canada, it became more competitive because it saved itself a whopping $10 million a year in sugar costs.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Perhaps, but what would you suggest in the cases where there are already one way tarriffs - where we have no tariff and the other country does?
Tariffs should only be used where there is unfair practices from another country, that are used to destroy US industry.
For example, The diaper-heads are lowering the price of oil to drive new oil producers in the USA out of business.
What do you do?
Tariffs are the only taxes I know of that causes “conservatives” to demand that the government confiscate more money from the citizens of our country in an effort to force some global social engineering. They are a very unnatural fit into any conservative mindset.
That is a fair question. An example might help me to focus my thinking, or help others. Lacking this, I will try to address this in general terms.
If a nation is denying itself a lower priced, higher quality American product through the use of tariffs, it is surely doing some harm to itself. If it is a consumer product, they are hurting their consumers. If it is raw or semi-processed materials, they are hurting their domestic manufacturers who use that material. Follow the product in detail, and we will probably see that they are hurting both domestic producers and consumers.
Of course, they are also hurting the US. It is a classic lose-lose scenario. We can respond reciprocally: I’ll match your lose-lose with my lose-lose - so there! I am skeptical on this. Maybe, just maybe, if it is highly focused it might make a point. You hit us with a 100% tariff on steel and we immediately respond with a 100% tariff on steel (to your country only). I really think this is too smart by half. There are just so many ways this can go wrong.
An alternative is dialog and persuasion. They may not respond favorably for many years. But it is better than sending in warships or compounding their tariff mistakes with our own, (and more from them, more from us, more from them, etc.)
Might as well say, "cattle".
“Tariffs produce winners and losers among American producers. Consumers simply lose.”
Why is it that China and Japan have tariffs?
What about all those manufacturing jobs lost? Have you bought any consumer goods lately that have been manufactured in the United States? How is it a good thing that Ford is moving a production facility to Mexico? Carrier? Hershey?
Fairly soon, all those consumers who are benefiting so handsomely, you suppose, will not have a job and will be unable to purchase anything.
Or, as the Remington CEO once stated, all that will be left is for Americans to sell insurance policies to each other.
The economic nationalism and protectionism of Hamilton, Madison, Jackson, and Henry Clay, and the Party of Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Coolidge, of all four presidents on Mount Rushmore, made America the greatest and most self-sufficient republic in history.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/free-trade-vs-the-republican-party/
We once had an expert on this industry at FR, but he left. Our loss.
In a sense, we started this “war” through the use of fracking. I think we are winning.
If you go back to the early days of oil production (1930s?), we had so much drilling relative to the demand that oil prices plummeted and people in TX and OK walked away from their derricks. Free markets can be a bitch. But that is how we get increasing prosperity.
I don’t think Saudi Arabia can reign in US oil production. Only Obama, Hilary, and environmental extremists can do that.
“How is it a good thing that Ford is moving a production facility to Mexico? Carrier? Hershey?”
Carrier was specifically mentioned in the article (similar reasoning applies to Ford):
“Politicians have criticized Carrier for its decision to move 2,100 air conditioning jobs from Indiana to Mexico. Carrier is affected by import restrictions on steel, copper tubing and aluminum extrusions and can escape those U.S. government-imposed costs simply by moving production across the border.”
Hershey was not mentioned by name, but Williams addresses companies, like Hershey, that use sugar:
“Another example of failing to think beyond stage one is with the tariff and quota protections given to the U.S. sugar industry. Chicago used to be America’s candy capital. Today it’s a mere shadow of its former self. Brach’s used to employ about 2,300 people; now most of its jobs are in Mexico. Ferrara Candy Co. has also moved much of its production to Mexico. Wages are indeed lower in Mexico, but wages are not the only factor in candy manufacturers’ flight from America. After all, Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours. By moving to Canada, it became more competitive because it saved itself a whopping $10 million a year in sugar costs.”
You ask: “How is it a good thing that Ford is moving a production facility to Mexico? Carrier? Hershey?”
You think tariffs are the solution, but they may be the primary cause of these moves.
“You think tariffs are the solution”
Yes, since China and Japan think they are the solutions. Also, Hamilton, Lincoln, Reagan, etc. When the United States had tariffs to protect industries, the United States was the economic engine of the world
“After all, Life Savers, which for 90 years manufactured in America, moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours. By moving to Canada, it became more competitive because it saved itself a whopping $10 million a year in sugar costs.”
Life Savers does not use sugar. Read the label. Hershey just started to use sugar (when they moved to Mexico they were not). So those arguments are useless.
“Life Savers does not use sugar. Read the label. Hershey just started to use sugar (when they moved to Mexico they were not). So those arguments are useless.”
Life Savers, from the Wrigley website:
INGREDIENTS:
SUGAR, CORN SYRUP, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, COLORS (RED 40, YELLOW 5, BLUE1).
“Hershey just started to use sugar (when they moved to Mexico they were not).” I don’t happen to have an old wrapper, but I don’t think the taste or ingredients have changed. They’ve always been sweet, and I suspect they have always used sugar.
The argument that people and companies react to prices is not useless. It is reality.
“China and Japan think they (tariffs) are the solutions.” I really don’t have independent knowledge of Chinese and Japanese tariffs. But I never felt we had to do whatever other countries do. The Chinese have moved away from communism, starting with Deng Xia Ping, and are far less poor than before.
“Also, Hamilton, Lincoln, Reagan, etc. When the United States had tariffs to protect industries, the United States was the economic engine of the world.”
We did have high tariffs under Hamilton through Lincoln, but were not the economic engine of the world. I suppose we have always had some tariffs, including tariffs under Carter and Reagan. But they were much lower than in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I kind of see your point. But I’m not sure it is a “replacement.” For example, if I mention “people,” I may not be “replacing” the word “citizen” with the word “people.” I am simply chosing a different word.
If someone were to go through an existing text and replace one word by another that would be a different matter. There was a terrorist event recently and the Department of Justice systematically removed all references to “Islamic terrorism.” They “sanitized” the report. THAT is something to complain about, IMO.
“Consumer” is a term used in business and elsewhere. It may be the case sometimes that replacing “consumer” with “citizen” would change (and possibly improve) the tone.
P.S.
In the original post, I said “consumers” lose. If I had said “citizens” lose that would not have been altogether correct. After all, I’ve acknowledged that some producers win. Those producers are citizens too. Their gain as producers are greater than their loss as consumers so, net, those particular citizens win.
The United States has ALWAYS had protective tariffs until the passage of free trade agreements. ALWAYS.
I will have to remember from now on that there are people, like you, who rejoice at the de-industrialization of the United States, at all cost, and are beyond any form of reason and logic, and with whom it is completely useless to discuss the subject.
Why don’t you go out to Lowes or Home Depot or some other big box store, now, and buy something and celebrate over the foreign manufacturing. It will usually be an American company that use to manufacture the same product in the United States. Celebrate the fact that those jobs no longer exist in the United States and that it adds to the vast unemployment in this country. And, if you are lucky, it will affect you at some point and you will be unemployed.
“I will have to remember from now on that there are people, like you, who rejoice at the de-industrialization of the United States, at all cost, and are beyond any form of reason and logic, and with whom it is completely useless to discuss the subject.”
Go ahead and make things up.
There were no ad hominum attacks on this thread until you showed up. The Ad hominum attack is a known fallacy. If you learn to stay away from the basic fallacies, you might, some day, post something of worth.
“There were no ad hominum attacks on this thread until you showed up.”
Successfully address my point about the free trade agreements de-industrializing the United States and causing mass unemployment.
Consult Pat Buchanan for precise stats on the impact of free trade agreements on our production and removal of factories.
Accusing me of ad hominem attacks is an ad hominem attack itself and an evasion of argument.
“I will have to remember from now on that there are people, like you, who rejoice at the de-industrialization of the United States, at all cost”
Not an ad hominem attack? Really? Do you even know what it means?
You tell me that Life Saver candies contain no sugar ... “so those arguments are useless.” When I show that the number one ingredient of Life Savers in sugar, you don’t even blink - no acknowledgment that you were dead wrong. That is just one example.
“Do you even know what it [ad hominem] means?”
Yes, and I even know how to correctly spell it.
from Reference.com:
Lifesavers candies, including the traditional hard candies, mints and the recently introduced Gummies, are made up of sugar, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup and citric acid.
Obviously not dead wrong. Not enough sugar to argue over, or to move out of the country over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.