Posted on 09/09/2016 6:29:21 AM PDT by expat_panama
Google “Uruguay Round” and weep. Please don’t spit, it’s vulgar.
Anyone defending the current zero tariff environment is by default a progressive who shows a preference to the income tax over a consumption tax. Marx’s useful idiots at best.
Official Harmonized Tariff Schedule 2016
“iow more tariffs = less tariff revenue.”
Possibly true if we’re on the right side of the ladder curve, but that’s doubtful.
Furthermore your response implies that you want to maximize revenue to the gov. That’s not very conservative.
I don’t want, and tariffs aren’t for maximizing gov revenue, they’re for protecting industries and jobs.
Have the manufacturers never thought that if they move manufacturing jobs offshore, then who here will have a job to buy their stuff?.....”
Government workers and dependents, they’re completely immune from foreign competition and are a greedy bunch of hacks.
Laffer
It is becoming obvious that economists do not read history books. “
Right. 100 years ago we got the Graduated income Tax. 100 years later we got Socialized Medicine. The epa has restricted production so much, we’ve got, what I tell my kids as we drive by abandoned ancient ruins of once beautiful factories, “blue skies and poverty”.
History shows there’s only 3 ways to produce wealth: mine it, grow it, or manufacture it. A country that has practically outlawed all three will collapse.
If nobody is working in the private sector, all ‘workers’ are government employees, then who is left to pay the taxes that pay the government ‘workers’?...............
Try George H. W. Bush around 1990. Signed 1992.
Weren’t following foreign affairs, politics, or economics during the Reagan era I see. That’s ok, many of us probably were kids back then.
The money to pay gov workers does NOT come from tax revenue but from Treasury auctions.
The money for Treasury Auctions comes from China et al.
The money China et al uses to enrich the gov class comes from me and you and everyone who buys imports.
To big steps are to lower taxes and scrap much of the regulations. The difficult part is to find skilled workers.
The borrower is slave to the lender.
One might invest in silver now based on possible tripling in value in two years, considering the previous examples of historical rally in value. Not likely to go far negative from current prices, so not much downside risk.
https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/top-7-reasons-im-buying-silver-now
There is a possibility that silver prices may become driven by an assessment of silver as a strategic material for energy purposes over the next year, not related to solar panel requirements.
The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed on January 2, 1988. This was a negotiation between the Reagan (US) and Mulroney (Ca) governments initiated in 1985.
This 1988 agreement is separate from negotiations including Mexico, Canada, and the US initiated by the senior Bush in 1989, which became the NAFTA agreement. NAFTA was ironed out and signed by President George H.W. Bush December 17, 1992, and ratified November 20, 1993, well after Bill Clinton began his first term as president.
There was an existing exploration of trade options throughout the Americas, initiated after the 1980 elections by Reagan. Attribution to Reagan of the final version of a trade agreement (NAFTA), whose negotiation began after his leaving office (1989), and was ratified just short of Bill Clinton’s second year in office (1993), seems a stretch of credibility.
“God Bless NAFTA. God Bless Ronald Reagan for bringing it to us.”
WTF
“The borrower is slave to the lender.”
Pretty much.
Until the borrower owes sooo much he can’t pay it back, then the lender is screwed.
Going on twenty-five years later you can follow activities along their northern border while surfing on the WWW of internet and never leave the armchair. As to myself, I can remember observing the first supersonic bomber SAC had flying, the ones that looked like a lawn dart with 4 engines, so that should serve as sufficient hint.
Right. So we know that Reagan intended to expand his FTA with Canada to Mexico. But we can’t say NAFTA was his idea, why, exactly?
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.