[1rudeboy]

I'm not the one trying to prove something about Reagan on this thread, what were you trying to prove again?

I'm thinking that he thinks there's some sort of a dispute about that "average tariffs" number. Problem is, I don't see anyone disputing it. He just doesn't realize that it fails to prove what he thinks it does.

I could argue that the merchandise goods trade deficit was higher when Reagan left office than when he entered, also. No one is stupid enough to argue that Reagan was a failure for that reason (though you'd think a protectionist might try).

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I could argue that the merchandise goods trade deficit was higher when Reagan left office than when he entered, also. No one is stupid enough to argue that Reagan was a failure for that reason (though you'd think a protectionist might try).

Only protectionists think merchandise goods trade deficits matter! None of them stop and think that they PERSONALLY run such deficits with dozens of people - the grocer, the gas supplier, the butcher, the shoe salesman, etcc.

Merchandise goods trade deficits are irrelevant; budget deficits are the ones that matter! If only we could keep that basic fact front and center with the protectionist crowd...

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is he claiming Reagan raised some tariffs while reducing others? Does he imagine anyone here disputes that? Does he imagine he’s won some argument by making that claim?

[calcowgirl]

I'm thinking that he thinks there's some sort of a dispute about that "average tariffs" number.

What average tariffs number?

No one has posted any numbers.