Please get me up to speed, here: so is the number we’re talking about, that we are not talking about, not the answer to the question, and the answer to the question not known? I think I’m getting a grasp on it . . . .
Heh, no problem. Mojave and a lot of the anti-capitalist protectionists like to run circles to try to confuse you...
Essentially, Mojave is trying to bluster that Reagan used tariffs to increase protection of the US as a whole. That number he keeps bandying about relates to the total number of tariffs applied but NOT the amount of tariff funds collected!
Toddsterpatriot asked Mojave for the average tariff applied; the typical tariff tax rate.
Mojave - not knowing the answer, and apparently too insecure to state as much - answered a different question. He answered about the number of tariffs in effect. An entirely DIFFERENT question, and one that doesn’t bear any application to the question at hand.
Classic spin - when asked a question that you either do not know the answer for, or that such answer will destroy your position, you substitute an answer for a seemingly similar question that altogether is irrelevant.
It would be like me asking did you like your bacon and eggs at breakfast, and you reply “when I sat down and smelled the bacon and drank the juice, and had the pancakes it was great”.
Your answer did not address my question, and in fact says NOTHING about the bacon and eggs! But it sounds “close enough” that you can hope I will infer/conclude you actually did enjoy the bacon and eggs.
Great! So hypothetically if 12% of imported products had a 10% tariff on them, then 8 years later 12% of imported products had a 10% tariff on them and an additional 8% of imported products had a 5% tariff on them, have "average tariffs" risen or fallen?
“Of the $387 billion in goods the U.S. imported in 1986, more than 20% was protected by special tariffs, quotas, or other types of restraints, according to Gary C. Hufbauer, a Georgetown University professor. When Reagan took office, the figure was 12%.”