Posted on 01/23/2018 7:13:40 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
The following provides historical perspective.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
Global warming believers hit worst.
“It is a tax and its defenders should understand that.”
...And you understand the issues better than Trump? I think not...
Damn those Founding Fathers. What the hell were they thinking, when they set it up so our nation would be funded by tariffs? /s
Not buying what you’re selling.
Our history with the tariff began with a tariff designed to collect revenue for the government since that was the only way to tax. Our economy had been distorted by colonialism and justified leaning in the other direction of protection for certain industries. Hence it was a revenue tariff and a protectionist tariff.
The other type tariff is a retaliatory tariff which is designed to retaliate against a nation which raises its tariff or is involved in practices which reduce Free Trade.
Markets make better use of the factors of production than governments and the change from more profitable to less profitable means less wealth is created. It is inescapable logic
There is no economic justification for a political tariff which is what this is. Trump just fired a shot across the bow demonstrating that he is serious about foreign trade with the view that trade should move more towards Free Trade.
But there is no real question about the fact that a tariff reduces economic growth, like all taxes. Trump understands that but is willing to accept economic losses in the short run for a larger payoff in the long run
My facts are completely straight.
Our first tariff was justifiable for the reasons discussed above. We had no choice if we wanted a government or to correct the distortions of colonialism.
Free Trade was not a choice then since no government practiced it. Our economy had NO free trade as part of colonialism. It was an ideal not an actual state of affairs.
Then is not now and the same logic does not work. If it ever did.
Tariffs lose more jobs than they create, slow the creation of wealth and gets the government too involved in economic decisions.
They were the reasons that the early period saw widespread bribery and corruption in Congress as lobbyists jockeyed for position on the protection list.
Oh, btw our country was not “built” on a tariff it was a small part of our emergence as a super power. Initially the main factor was LAND and, in the South, slavery. Then we imported large numbers of laborers from Europe to provide a labor force. Then there was the Scientific Revolution which produced tremendous growth in productivity.
To the extent that tariffs supported unprofitable concerns they slower our growth.
I thought there was some body which reported the trade unfair and was used to give this a fig leaf.
China’s rise is based on a very low Capital to Labor ratio which allows it to cheaply produce cheap goods which are labor intensive.
Comparatively we have a high C/L ratio meaning we produce capital intensive goods which are expensive.
See above for a discussion of the history of the tariff.
Those days are long gone never to return.
Trump knows the economics of a tariff he is a graduate of Wharton.
How could a tariff which raises revenue for the federal government NOT be a tax?
They had no choice.
There was no other means of taxation for the federal government nor were they in an environment with anything close to free trade.
It was surrounded by colonial empire run alone colonialistic lines, zero free trade.
Only the less advanced nations use a tariff.
Yes, but a tariff ends up being a consumption-based tax to the consumer, which is infinitely preferable to an income-based tax, for numerous reasons already known by most FReepers.
If the federal government is going to raise revenues at all, resorting to consumption and import taxes is a much "fairer" way to do it—and it also has the advantage of being inherently less Tyrannical.
It is the "progressive income tax" which is a Tyrannical abomination—amounting to proportional slavery for American workers and businesses—and invariably infringes on Individuals' Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, at a bare minimum.
Not surprisingly, the progressive income tax—and inheritance taxes as well—are core tenets of Communism, listed as central platform planks in the Communist Manifesto. The Sixteenth Amendment—if it was ever even properly ratified—should be repealed forthwith (along with the Seventeenth Amendment as well, while we're at it)...
Hamilton never intended for a protectionist tariff to be permanent nor to support unviable concerns. He intended it to provide revenue and to aid in correcting the distortions in our economy of colonialism. British policy prevented the colonies from manufacturing.
This is not the case any more.
A tariff no longer falls on the wealthy and its effects include far more than the wealthy.
It punishes one segment of the economy for the benefit of another. See Tariff of Abominations which almost provoked a Civil War thirty years before Ft Sumter.
Tariffs were one of the first sources of division because they fell unfairly on certain segments of the economy.
Your link shows just how complex the tariff history is and how it was used for different policies at different times depending on which economic faction was in power.
It also shows how little it has mattered since the Depression and WW2. Reductions in rates overall has produced an enormous increase in foreign trade and wealth creation.
In analyzing the tariff one must start with the knowledge that it is a TAX and a reduction of liberty.
A tariff of 20% might cover one third of the military budget.
It is a hidden tax effecting more than the direct payee. Tariffs raise prices on everything and those on factors of production are particularly destructive to the creation of wealth.
Do you really want the federal Congress to decide on greater involvement in the private economy?
“And it’s all Trump’s fault. If Bush III or Clinton II had gotten elected, those jobs would still be in Asia.”
And Boosh III would be moving his family’s Guacabowle business to Mexico. While Clitton II would still be trying to flesh out this year’s “contributions” to the Clitton Foundation, or be setting up a foreign source for knit vagina caps.
Look, I understand your arguments, but we have been taking it in the shorts with China for decades.
They don’t import our merchandise. That’s their choice, but we have choices too.
If I’m asked if I’d rather be able to buy a camera for half-price or have a job to feed my family, I’m going to pick have a job to feed my family.
We need more jobs here in the U. S.
This WILL NOT kill jobs.
BTW I was one of the very first Trumpeteers on this site and one of the very few who consistently said he would win.
I know what he is doing and support him 100% still.
Bingo, tariffs fund Govt.
Next, cut income taxes. Cut property taxes.
Sending messages to China and S. Korea about dealing with the NORKs...
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.