Posted on 06/11/2018 11:38:09 AM PDT by Thalean
https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade
A tariff is a tax levied on a foreign good, to help a special interest at the expense of American consumers.
A trade restraint or marketing agreement—on the number of inexpensive Taiwanese sneakers that Americans can buy, for example—achieves the same goal, at the same cost, in a less forthright manner.
And all the trends are towards more subsidies for U.S. exporters, and more prohibitions and taxes on imports.
Trade is to be subsidized or restrained, not left to the voluntary actions of consumers and producers.
In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of “protecting” U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made world-wide and longer-lasting.
Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.
Not only does protectionism make everyone poorer—except certain special interests—but it also increases international tensions, and can lead to war.
“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it,” wrote Adam Smith in 1776, “better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country will not therefore be diminished... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed to the greater advantage.”
An important economic principle is called the division of labor. It states that economic efficiency, and therefore growth, is enhanced by everyone doing what he does best.
If I had to grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, and teach my own children, our family’s living standard would plummet to a subsistence, or below-subsistence, level.
But if I practice medicine, and allow others with more talent as farmers, builders or tailors to do what they do best, we are all better oft: Precious capital and labor are directed to the areas of most productivity, and through voluntary trading, we all benefit.
This principle works just as effectively on a national and world-wide scale, as Adam Smith pointed out.
https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade
A tariff is a tax levied on a foreign good, to help a special interest at the expense of American consumers.
A trade restraint or marketing agreement—on the number of inexpensive Taiwanese sneakers that Americans can buy, for example—achieves the same goal, at the same cost, in a less forthright manner.
And all the trends are towards more subsidies for U.S. exporters, and more prohibitions and taxes on imports.
Trade is to be subsidized or restrained, not left to the voluntary actions of consumers and producers.
In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of “protecting” U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made world-wide and longer-lasting.
Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.
Not only does protectionism make everyone poorer—except certain special interests—but it also increases international tensions, and can lead to war.
“If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it,” wrote Adam Smith in 1776, “better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country will not therefore be diminished... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed to the greater advantage.”
An important economic principle is called the division of labor. It states that economic efficiency, and therefore growth, is enhanced by everyone doing what he does best.
If I had to grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, and teach my own children, our family’s living standard would plummet to a subsistence, or below-subsistence, level.
But if I practice medicine, and allow others with more talent as farmers, builders or tailors to do what they do best, we are all better oft: Precious capital and labor are directed to the areas of most productivity, and through voluntary trading, we all benefit.
This principle works just as effectively on a national and world-wide scale, as Adam Smith pointed out.
Furthermore, trade barriers help to create monopolies. I’m sure you must love monopolies.
http://www.libertarianquotes.net/M/Ludwig-von-Mises.html
“Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.” — Ludwig von Mises
So you reject Friedman and Smith? Then you oppose economic liberty?
What economists do you like?
One man’s interpretation. Others do not agree.
It’s not free trade that failed. it’s gvernment-managed “free trade.” This article clarifies.
https://mises.org/library/no-more-free-trade-treaties-its-time-genuine-free-trade
If we accept free trade, treaties of commerce have no reason to exist as a goal. There is no need to have them since what they are meant to fix does not exist anymore, each nation letting come and go freely any commodity at its borders. This was the doctrine of J.B. Say and of all the French economic school until Michel Chevalier. It is the exact model Léon Say recently adopted. It was also the doctrine of the English economic school until Cobden. Cobden, by taking the responsibility of the 1860 treaty between France and England, moved closer to the revival of the odious policy of the treaties of reciprocity, and came close to forgetting the doctrine of political economy for which he had been, in the first part of his life, the intransigent advocate.1
In 1859, the French liberal economist Michel Chevalier went to see Richard Cobden to propose a free trade treaty between France and England. For sure, this treaty, enacted in 1860, was a temporary success for free traders. What is less known however, is that at first, Cobden, in accordance with the free trade doctrine, refused to negotiate or sign any “free trade” treaty. His argument was that free trade should be unilateral, that it consists not in treaties but in complete freedom in international trade, regardless of where products come from.
Chevalier eventually succeeded in obtaining Cobden’s support. But Cobden was puzzled by the complete secrecy surrounding the negotiations and, in a letter to Lord Palmerston, he attributed this secrecy to the “lack of courage” of the French government.2 Similarly, today, the lack of transparency concerning free-trade negotiations is problematic and it is often hard to know what the content of a treaty will be.
Today, while some of these treaties are currently being negotiated, there are already examples of similar agreements enforced. One could refer to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) or more regional agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the European Economic Area (EEA).
But why would protectionist governments who spend their time hampering markets by giving monopolies and other kinds of privileges at national level, open markets at the international level? The very fact that governments are negotiating in the name of free trade should be suspicious for any libertarian or true advocate of free trade.
Intergovernmental Agreements Enhance Government Power
Murray Rothbard opposed NAFTA and showed that what the Orwellians were calling a “free trade” agreement was in reality a means to cartelize and increase government control over the economy. Several clues lead us to the conclusion that protectionist policies often hide behind free trade agreements, for as Rothbard said, “genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty.”
The first clue is the intergovernmental and top down approach. Intergovernmentalism is nothing more than a process governments use to mutualize their respective sovereignties in order to complete tasks they are not able to accomplish alone. Nation-states are entities which rarely give up power. When they finalize agreements, it is to strengthen their power, not to weaken it. On the contrary, free trade requires a decline of governments’ regulatory power.
Also, free trade does not require interstate cooperation. On the contrary, free trade can be and has to be done unilaterally. As freedom of speech does not need international cooperation, freedom to trade with foreigners does not need governments and treaties. Similarly, our government should not rob their population with corporatist and protectionist policies just because others do. Anyone who believes in free trade does not fear unilateralism. The simple fact that bureaucrats and politicians do not conceive of the international economy outside of a legal frame settled by intergovernmental agreements is sufficient to show the mistrust they express toward individual freedom. This reinforces the conviction that these agreements are driven by mercantilist preoccupations rather than genuine free trade goals.
Extending Regulatory Control Beyond Your Own Borders
The second clue concerns the intense conflicts between governments on these agreements characterized by a high degree of technicality. History shows that multilateralism leads toward deadlock. The failure of the Doha Round is the cause of the proliferation of bilateral and regional initiatives. The contentious relations between governments come from the will of some states to dictate their norms to other countries’ producers through an international harmonization process. But this is the exact opposite of free trade. As economic theory shows us, exchange and the division of labor is not based on equality and harmonization but rather on differences and inequality. Furthermore, the technicality and secrecy surrounding free-trade agreements favor mercantilism and protectionism to the extent that technical regulations are used to favor producers who are politically well connected.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a good illustration of this balance of power. It was at first an agreement between four countries (Brunei, New-Zealand, Singapore, and Chile.) which tried to resist some neighbors’ commercial influence, especially China. Then the United States came and convinced more countries (Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and Japan) to join the negotiations. Let’s also notice that most of the countries invited are already bound by regional or bilateral agreements with the United States. China remains excluded from the process. This governmental drive toward regulatory hegemony is obviously the complete opposite of free trade. Indeed, free trade supposes letting consumers peacefully choose what products they want to promote rather than determining what is available through bureaucratic coercion.
Consolidation of Monopolies
The third clue concerns the vigor with which governments have tried over several decades to impose at the international level a more constraining legal framework for so-called “intellectual property.” The first initiatives appear in 1883 and 1886 with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Amended several times during the twentieth century, the initiatives embrace, respectively, 176 and 168 states. These conventions are placed under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an international bureaucracy which joined the United Nations system in 1974. A turning point came in 1994 with the signature of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administrated by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is now incorporated as an essential part of the administration of international commerce and benefits from the WTO’s sanction mechanisms.
In 2012 we endured a fresh attempt by our governments to reduce our freedom to create and share intellectual works with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). And, if we look at the negotiations mandates of these trade agreements, we can see they all include a chapter on the reinforcement of “intellectual property” rights. Intellectual property has become a key concept of the international economy. But this must not hide its illegitimacy.
As Vilfredo Pareto remarked, “From the point of view of the protectionist, treaties of commerce are … what is most important for a country’s economic future.” Each time a new “free trade” treaty is enacted, what is seen is the attenuation of tariff barriers, but what is not seen is the sneaky proliferation and harmonization of non-tariff barriers impeding free enterprise and creating monopolies at an international scale at the expense of the consumer. It’s time for genuine free trade.
All of you Free Traitors™ will never admit that consumption taxes, like the tariff, are superior to the income tax. Why? To admit that ruins your religion.
So forget trade, tariffs can be justified on the revenue generation aspect alone. Tariffs are not mandatory, the income tax you free trade Nazis tacitly support certainly is mandatory with incarceration the ultimate threat. Nobody ever got thrown into jail for not buying an imported good.
Income taxes are horrible. So are consumption taxes. Both should be as low as possible. But you want to raise them.
Do you like sky-high gasoline prices? Because they’re at least partly the result of ridiculously high consumption taxes. There are taxes at every stage of the process.
Are you in favor of raising the cost of American exports? Because retaliatory tariffs and trade barriers are coming if we do this.
Raising tariffs will undo a lot of the good that we got from the recent tax cuts. Of course, you protectionists will never admit that. Why? To admit that ruins your religion.
And to claim that “Tariffs are not mandatory” is as ridiculous as claiming that income tax is not mandatory, or payroll tax (which also is a drag on the economy and is the next tax we ought to cut.) You trade, you pay. It’s not as if we can just stop trading. One can stop smoking and avoid the tobacco tax. One can stop drinking and avoid the alcohol tax. But we can’t stop trading. Economic isolationism would do massive harm to our economy.
Another harm that tariffs do is to reduce stock in dollar stores and other low-price merchants. not only does this raise the cost of living, it causes unemployment for many low-end workers who work for these businesses.
Additionally, manufacturers in many developing countries do not have the deal with overhead like environmental regulations (i.e. Chinese industries and those of many other developing countries just dump their raw waste into the rivers or into the ground). Our manufacturers incur costs that foreign manufacturers do not, so once again charging a tariff simply levels the competitive playing field.
As a consumer I cannot be compelled to buy anything; so therefore I will not pay tariff UNLESS I WANT TO. That's the truth which makes the tariff far superior to income tax.
Face it, you are a socialist/progressive that is tacitly supporting the income tax by fighting the tariff. This puts you and your ilk at odds with the founding of both the country and the Republican Party. It also makes you a globalist and not a nationalist. So you are not a patriot because you can be either a globalist or a patriot but not both. The two things are mutually exclusive.
The world is catching on. Communion and fascism were defeated during the last century and globalism will be defeated this century. Globalist/Free Traders are on the way out. Your false econ-religion will die.
Keep in mind that the same leftist feminist "friends" who fill your wife's head with anti-Trump rhetoric, will also be filling her with all the reasons why she should divorce you and strip you of all our assets.
This is very interesting. Here is a definition from wiki on isolationism which you have stated is a bad thing.
A policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Since you said this is bad thing let me re-write with the context pointed in the opposite direction, creating a globalist definition from it and tell me if you would agree whether this describes you.
Globalism(converse of isolationism)
A policy or doctrine of trying to involve one's country in the affairs of other nations by entering into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely dependent; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to global advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of conflict by through foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
LOL
After a series of unfortunate events - including 8 years of 0bama - I have nothing but debt!
Seriously, though: She has health issues which are complicating her menopause and the fact that we’re still together is the only thing which gives me hope for everything else.
But the average libtard will get a bellyroll and a generous serving of crow for dishing out what I tolerate at home :)
You can’t just not buy anything. And even domestic products use imports (and vice versa.)
Let’s say, for example, that you decide to evade paying a tariff tax by buying an American car. The American car companies use a lot of imported steel. They have to pay a tariff on that, and that raises the price of the car. They pass that to you, so you’re paying the tax.
Do you drink coffee? Unless you use exclusive Kona, it’s imported. If we were to impose tariffs on coffee beans, we’d all pay that.
I don’t think you understand how much imported material is in U.S.-made products, and vice versa. And any tariff on any of it is passed along to you.
We object to government picking winners and losers, but that’s exactly what they’re doing when they impose tariffs.
We don't object when our government favors the interest of US citizens over the interests of foreign citizens, in fact we expect it (though we don't always get it). Similarly, we should expect the US government to favor US over foreign industries by charging the latter a "pay to play" fee to sell their goods here. There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else on the books that promises no questions asked access to US markets to foreign companies.
Not everything is imported. At least not yet anyway. You Free Traitors™ are working on it. The point is the tariff is non binding and voluntary and God forbid - regressive!
I don’t think you understand how much imported material is in U.S.-made products, and vice versa. And any tariff on any of it is passed along to you.
Put a high enough tariff on things and that will change ASAP!
But that is not what tariffs do.
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.