Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
OK, thank you. So your position is to use tariffs as a means of managing the economy by protecting US firms that you feel need.
Fundamentally, free trade is not your position, managed trade is. Is that correct?
Looks like I’m missing a good game of whack-the-fools.
Nope. My position is that Ronald Reagan selectively used tariffs as a means of managing foreign trade by protecting those sectors of the economy where he had determined such protections best served our nation's economic interests.
Unlike "free trade" absolutists, he wasn't bound to simplistic sloganeering as a substitute for intelligent policy development.
OK, so your position on trade is non-existent; however you DO hold that Reagan used trade tariffs selectively. Is that correct?
You hold no position - pro or con - about tariffs. But you hold that Reagan chose to use them to manage trade.
What is your position on average tariffs when Reagan entered office and when he left office? After 2 terms, were they higher or lower?
In theory, mostly. But I would not make that broad a declaration.
And you appear to make some assumptions on my part, too! I have never defended the current framework of trade...
I did not attribute the comment to you, instead said "lame attempts on this thread to label anyone a 'protectionist'". I did not remember the various posters that were throwing the term around. My apologies if you thought the comment was directed at you.
But if what you write above is true, then I should be able to state the following, without offense to you: "You are in favor of free trade and the elimination of tariffs, not the current Governmental intrusion we have."
I said what I said. I don't see a need for you to keep putting your words in my mouth.
Right, managed trade not fair trade. Use tariffs selectively. Got it.
No, not really. Comment #131 should've ended it, but now (like a Cops episode), we are watching someone driving on their rims.
In the context that I used the word “tariff,” which you quoted in your post, I clearly was talking about a revenue-type tariff to relieve the costs born by taxpayers of such trade. And yes — you most obviously misunderstod my point.
One more time — I said the cost of imports should not be subsidized and should be charged to those who receive the direct benefit. Whatever term you would like to attribute to that charge (tax, fee, tariff, contribution, donation) matters little to me.
I did not “call for the costs at ALL ports to be increased.” Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?
BULL! Track back on what you were responding to. It directly related to my post.
Latecomer? I was the 5th post on this thread.
When you use the word tariff rather than fee, that means it applies to all ports not just yours. It appears that the words being placed in your mouth are from your own inaccurate statements.
You have now clarified that you don’t care how it’s paid for; thus we can have free trade with zero tariffs, and as long as the fees charged by your local port covers the costs of importing you’re happy with that. Correct?
Nope. Congress should exercise its Constitutional right and responsibility to regulate foreign trade using the tools that are most appropriate for the circumstances and which best serve the economic interests of the United States. The President, to the extent that he has been granted powers over foreign trade or where he is capable of influencing congressional legislation, should put America's interests first.
Putting our economy on a "free trade" autopilot would be an abdication of those responsibilities.
You hold no position - pro or con - about tariffs.
I would hold that a one size fits all solution to trade questions is a poor approach.
Got it. Managed trade, not free trade.
My apologies. I might have been thinking that you didn’t provide something substantive until later.
Unless Congress ratifies a free trade agreement, yes?
Sure: just view my posts on this thread.
Can you show me where I mis-stated someone's position, and where they corrected me on my error?
See prior posts. When you attempt to restate my opinion, you have consistently got it wrong.
VERY clear!
Finally! It's about the 5th time I said it, at least.
So would you support an increase in port fees to balance this subsidy? Or must it be done by tariffs?
See prior posts.
FYI -- This would be yet another example of you mistating others' opinions.
There you go again.
I don't know what the figures were for 1988. Here's some numbers for 1986.
“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%.”
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/03/02/68728/index.htm
Surprised?
For God's sake, he's spent the better part of a day-and-a-half trying to get Mojave to take a position!
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.