Trump imposes 30 percent tariff on solar panel imports

The Hill ^ | 01/22/18 | Timothy Cama

[arrogantsob]

You still haven’t give me a name.

You must live in a real shitty place to be so miserable, nasty and to believe that government intervention in the private market can help you.

If “globalist” means one who understands and promotes International trade then I am guilty. Trump supports international trade as well. No gymnastics are needed just a clear head.

[arrogantsob]

Slavery benefited more than just the South. Northern textile mills were dependent upon the cotton of the South. Northern shippers profited from the shipment of cotton, tobacco and other products of the South. Railroads profited from the traffic. Financial arrangements went through the North, no small consideration. In the build-up to the Civil War NY was inclined to let the South go.

Most of those not planters had little or no control over their lives and slavery kept them impoverished since wage rates were suppressed. Or they had to farm the marginal land left after the Slavocracy didn’t want it. The planters made no effort to keep the land fertile.

You keep complaining about the income tax but seem oblivious to the fact that we will have BOTH. A tariff cannot produce the revenue necessary to fund the federal government as it is. It can’t even fund the military.

Every tariff harms both parties. B will sell less to A because of A’s tariff then A will sell less to B because B has a lower income due to the tariff and imposes one of its own.

[ConservativeMind]

So, you believe slavery made such a difference to this country? Really?

Let’s look at the numbers.

Slaves brought to the US, from 1620 to 1866: 305,000 cumulative, dead and still alive

Current population of the United States as of 1860: 31,443,321 alive that year

Number and percentage of slaves (which were single-handedly responsible for making the US everything it was at the time, according to Arrogant): 3,950,528 (13%).

You maintain that slavery was such a big deal in helping the US expand, yet you have no numbers to back it up.

Enjoy mine (and get a more credible argument):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total

[ConservativeMind]

Just so everyone has the juicy context of what Arrogant said, I provide it below:

“It is also as easy or easier to argue that our growth until the Civil War was a product of slavery than the tariffs.”

[arrogantsob]

Don’t ask me to do what you don’t. There are no numbers proving the tariff was responsible for our growth as a nation. Correlation is not causation which seems to be the pro-tariff position. They also seem to think that something which “worked” at one time has the same effect at another time. Hamilton’s program was much more important of which the tariff was ONE element.

You want numbers? What percentage of our economy was from the South? Particularly early in our history? One percent, 25%? My guess is at least the latter figure. What percentage of the South’s economy was from slavery? Fifty percent, 75%?

Naturally you misstate what I said about slavery. I didn’t say it could be proved that slavery was that important. I said it would be as easy or easier to prove that it was as important as a tariff.

Then there the outright LIE that I claim slavery was “...single-handedly responsible for making the US everything it was at the time,...” Not only is it a lie it is a ridiculous lie.

I have been discussing this issue in good faith and never distorted or lied about what you claim.

One of the most beneficial aspect of the tariff was that it bled capital from the Slavocracy. This was of great benefit to the nation for weakening the Plantation economy.

[arrogantsob]

That is what I said, not what you claimed above.

For the actual effect of a general tariff read “The Wealth of Nation” by Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Milton Friedman. It has been a constant claim that the tariff (outside of specific instants” does not aid in the creation of wealth but retards it. I did not pull my ideas with regard to tariffs out of my @$$.

Another case you should look into is the controversial “Corn Laws” and their impacts in Great Britain.

[ConservativeMind]

All taxes retard growth.

I happen to own an autographed copy of “Free to Choose” with both Friedmans’ signatures. I know all about free trade.

I also know income taxes are a far worse sin to fund the government than tariffs are.

What you pulled out of your backside was that slavery was responsible for so much of what this country was and became. It wasn’t.

Tariffs existed for over 130 formidable years. They most definitely did not hurt the country, as evidenced by its extreme growth, and slavery was not remotely responsible for that extreme growth, especially once the late 1860s occurred.

[arrogantsob]

If you know all about Free Trade you realize that policies aimed a FT are best. Tariffs slow growth you admit but yet support tariffs. As long as that is recognized I have no problem with that position.

Slavery was the principle economic engine for the entire county for at least the first fifty years and never contributed less than 25-30% of the national income. Without slavery we would have had no foreign trade on the export side. Southern exports were bringing gold into the country.

Our money supply was controlled by the gold (and silver) until the CW. It is hard to see how it wasn’t critical with any logic I am familiar with.

I was thinking about the discussion regarding the factors of growth and neither of us pointed to the vast increase in the labor force during that period. We were importing the best and brightest of Europe’s workers including technical workers. This may be the most important of the lot.