No, Tariffs are Not 'Domestic Sanctions'

American Greatness ^ | June 11, 2018 | Spencer P Morrison

[Thalean]

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is not democratic—it’s barely even a republic. The same goes for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos).

In fact, if a country includes democratic in its name, you can safely assume that it’s not democratic. This is a classic example of, what I like to call, the wisdom of irony: things are often not what they claim to be, and the more they claim, the less they are.

Consider Reason Magazine. In a recent piece, columnist A. Barton Hinkle argues that tariffs are sanctions, since both limit imports into nations. Basically, Hinkle’s argument rests on the classic logical principle: “if it looks like a duck, it’s a duck.” Unfortunately, Hinkle’s conclusion is fundamentally unreasonable. As always, the Devil’s in the details—details which he conveniently ignores.

[TBP]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-proposed-tariffs-wont-bad-happen-next-220111328.html

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he would soon impose tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports from countries around the world. Analysts agree the tariffs themselves are likely to have minimal impact as steel and aluminum account for about 2% of imported goods.
Rather, analysts worry that the response from U.S. trading partners could be major.
“The big issue there is if there’s retaliatory tariffs … that would become a big issue if that happens,” Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group, said in a phone interview. “If a lot of countries got involved, it’s a dangerous slope that [Trump is] playing here.”
Goldman Sachs said in a note to clients that the tariffs, if finalized as currently proposed, would be “the most substantial trade restriction the Administration has announced to date.”
Retaliation
While much of Trump’s rhetoric on “unfair” trade deals has been directed at China, much of the steel and aluminum imported to the United States actually comes from Canada, Mexico and other countries in the Americas. U.S. trading partners have already started to respond.
Canadian Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne called the tariff proposal “unacceptable,” with the German Steel Association saying that the proposal would violate World Trade Organization rules.

[TBP]

Lots of good info here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5qd045/global_tariffs_are_a_bad_idea/

[TBP]

https://observer-reporter.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-steel-aluminum-tariffs-are-a-bad-idea/article_7946822c-1d80-11e8-9f8d-f34ae8a14751.html

The likelihood of the industrial economy of 60 years ago returning is, at best, chimerical. Cities like Pittsburgh have long since moved on from their smokestack legacies, investing resources in education and medicine. If Pittsburgh’s air were as smoky as it was in the days when men in white-collar jobs had to bring a second shirt with them to the office because the first would be speckled with soot by lunchtime, it would not be a finalist for Amazon’s second headquarters.

And even in the profoundly unlikely circumstance that the domestic steel industry regained its former preeminence, chances are it wouldn’t employ nearly as many people as it did in its heyday, not with many of the tasks in manufacturing now being carried out by robots.

[TBP]

http://www.freerangereport.com/index.php/2018/04/08/cattlemen-respond-to-china-including-u-s-beef-on-retaliatory-tariff-list/

“It is unsettling to see American-produced beef listed as a target for retaliation. Sadly, we are not surprised, as this is an inevitable outcome of any trade war. This is a battle between two governments, and the unfortunate casualties will be America’s cattlemen and women and our consumers in China. The Trump Administration has until the end of May to resolve this issue. We believe in trade enforcement, but endless retaliation is not a good path forward for either side.”

[central_va]

his is a battle between two governments, and the unfortunate casualties will be America’s cattlemen and women and our consumers in China.

What we will see is reduction in domestic beef prices which will be a boon to US consumers. Win - win! So it works both ways. But you can't see that because you are a brainwashed Free Traitor™.

[central_va]

Hey global boy these must be tough times for traitors.

[central_va]

Adam Smith never envisioned multi national corporations closing factories in England and moving production to the third world to exploit cheap labor and then re importing the same product back into England duty free! Smith would have been hung for that. That is not Free Trade. That is f—k trade.

[central_va]

What Free Traitors™ want us to believe is that the supply function is static and no new domestic suppliers will EVER come on line. Despite their best efforts brand new factories are still being built in the USA all the time. Not as many as are closed before went "new world order" mind you but the situation is dynamic and not static. With more domestic supply will mean pressure to reduce prices.

The mental midgets we lovingly call Free Traitors™ are some of the stupidest people on earth.

[central_va]

Forget it, all I need to know about Free Trade I learned watching this 30 year long disastrous experiment fail.

[central_va]

Like you, Marx also wanted Free Trade.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Never get married to a political concept.

That is what the liberals did with Marxism and they continue to be faithful no matter what horrors arise from it.

Some conservatives are just as wedded to the free trade idea. In concept it is as beautiful dream as the Marxist "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."

Goods will flow freely from where it makes sense to make them to areas who will buy them and spend their time on grander and greater concepts.

As the Marxist use the concept of family for their dream the Free Trade people use the town concept for theirs. The vet does not spend his time making his own clothing but buys it from the tailor who buys his food from the market who buys it from the farmer who employs the vet to tend his animals and everyone prospers.

The problem is that in real life dealings between countries does not work that way.

No, not even between allies. Because they are not part of your town. They have their own town they want to see prosper and if it comes at the expense of yours, well, that is ok.

[TBP]

That’s actually not true.

[central_va]

No dummy it's true.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

-- Marx

So is red your favorite color comrade?

[TBP]

A tariff is a tax.

When you tax something, you get less of it.

Taxes raise the cost of an item.

That raises costs for all producers who use that item. Take car companies, for example. If it costs them more to buy steel, they buy less steel and/or they raise prices on their products.

Buying less of the raw materials (in this case steel) means less production, lower sales, fewer people working for the company. Then they have less money to buy other products and we get less of those, which sets off this circle again.

Raising the price of your product means fewer people buy it. Reduced sales means reduced payroll, which again leaves fewer people working, reducing purchasing power in the economy as a whole. Our standard of living is lowered.

Then the politicians see this and they tax those who are still working, of whom there will be fewer, to provide benefits for the ones who are no longer working, and to subsidize the companies lest their failure collapse the economy. (Never mind that the policy that put them in that spot does the same thing.)

If that’s the world you want, then you should support tariffs. In fact, I’d make a similar argument to the minimum wage. If a 10 percent tariff is good, why not have a 200 percent tariff?

But if that’s not the economy and world you want, then we need to stop this protectionism, this modern mercantilism, before it can do its damage.

[TBP]

He was for state control, not for free trade, except as a tactic.

Marx was anything but a free trader. And his economic analysis was idiotic and almost exactly backwards.

[TBP]

Here is Milton Friedman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3ruapRQZk

[TBP]

More of Milton Friedman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

[TBP]

Here is Adam Smith. Obviously, another Communist, right?

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/459

One of the earliest uses of the word “liberal” to describe a society in which there was individual economic liberty was Adam Smith’s phrase “liberal system” which he used to describe free trade in contrast to the “mercantile system” of restrictions and laws:

Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire. As among the different provinces of a great empire the freedom of the inland trade appears, both from reason and experience, not only the best palliative of a dearth, but the most effectual preventative of a famine; so would the freedom of the exportation and importation trade be among the different states into which a great continent was divided.

Full Quote
About this Quotation:

This passage on the benefits of free trade in agriculture is noteworthy for several reasons. Firstly, it is an early example of Smiths’s use of the word “liberal” in its more modern sense of economic liberty instead of its more traditional meaning of “liberality” or generosity of spirit. Second, it is interesting to see that he uses it in contrast to another system, that of the “mercantilist system” of trade regulations and restrictions. One tends to associate Smith with strong criticisms of “men of system” who wished to impose their vision of a future society on their fellow citizens. Here he seems to accept the idea that there is another “system” which is not necessarily harmful to the liberty of others but which in fact defends it vigorously. Third, he grounds his defence of free trade in grain firmly on utilitarian arguments not upon any right to liberty or property held by the would-be traders. He states that regulating the grain trade may in fact turn a local shortage of food into a more serious famine. And fourthly, he makes a very interesting argument about the similarities between regulating the grain trade and regulating religion. Since people are passionately interested in the things that concern them most, such as food for the body and food for the soul, they put pressure on governments to regulate these matters. Smith however warns that this is not always wise as experience has shown that “we so seldom find a reasonable system established with regard to either of those two capital objects.”

[central_va]

Free Trade, Protectionism, and the Founding Fathers

Are you a protectionist? You might be surprised to know that you probably are and that you are part of a fraternity that includes John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, and George Washington. That's right; America's Founding Fathers were hard-core protectionists. In fact, the central reason for the creation of our Constitution was to establish protectionism as our national economic policy. This book collects and presents the irrefutable historical evidence that "Free Trade" is the oldest scam ever perpetuated upon the United States of America and nearly killed our new republic in its infancy. In less than 100 pages of plain, straightforward, and easy to read language, the author documents with historical quotes, figures and facts, that "Free Trade" was, and is now once again, the greatest threat facing America. He shows why and how it is so destructive and why eliminating it will immediately begin to return prosperity and opportunity to the Middle Class and security, solvency, and sovereignty to our great nation. It is a book you will not be able to put down and you will feel absolutely compelled to share with your family, friends, and coworkers.

[central_va]

Friedman, Smith, Keynes all failed economic theorists the need to be relegated to the dustbin of history.