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.
See posts 301, 305, and your reply at post 319. If I have mischaracterized what you were trying to say, then I apologize.
Don't like the taste of your own medicine, eh?
I try to clarify positions before discussing them, and if I state them wrong, I apologize and ask for clarification.
Are you man enough to apologize for your same shortcoming?
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?
Now that comment is totally like my ex-wife: We can't be broke, we still have checks in the check book
So you're saying deficits are okay?
The whole mind-set; spend it if ya got it, borrow if you don't.... is an acceptable policy?
Borrowing and flooding the world with greenbacks is a good thing/don't matter?
Argentina anyone?
No wonder the whole country is in deep Kimpchee!!!
Well, there are two possibilities: you can calculate the average tariff on all imported products, or you can calculate the average tariff on all imported products subject to a tariff. As long as you remain consisted with regard to the "before" and "after," what difference does it make? You suggest that it does . . . well?
Why not use both, just to be safe.
So if one imported product had a ten percent tariff, then eight years later one imported product had a ten percent tariff and one thousand additional imported products had a nine percent tariff, it would be your contention that tariffs had fallen?
That's fascinating.
Wonderfully! You should grow up a bit and enjoy the air where we adults communicate!
Is it measured against all imported products or only those subjected to tariff.
It would be for all imported products since all products have tariff codes; many have a zero tariff rate, but all have tariff codes.
But why does it matter? You already have stated - repeatedly - that you do not have the numbers. Do you have any numbers related to average tariff rates?
No, he's saying that your trade deficit is ok, and your budget deficit is not. How many dozens of times has this been explained to you?
If I increase my purchases of foreign goods by $1,000,000 without borrowing, do you think that increases the Federal deficit?
If I decrease my purchases of foreign goods by $1,000,000, do you think that decreases the Federal deficit?
Borrowing and flooding the world with greenbacks is a good thing/don't matter?
The greenbacks I'm flooding the world with aren't borrowed. Is that a bad thing? Or does it matter?
No, I am not. I am saying that:
Trade deficits are not an issue;
Budget deficits are a problem.
The two are wholly separate items, and one does not cause the other. Remember, you have a massive trade deficit with your grocer, your gas station, your clothing store.
Trade deficits or surpluses are a measure of the economic trade activity of private business; it's NOT a measure of the income of the Country! In fact, our GDP has grown right along with our trade deficits.
All a trade deficit means is that we generate enough revenue internally that we can consume even more than we export; it says NOTHING about the total revenue and wealth generation going on.
Budget deficits are a measure of your checkbook account; that is a serious concern.
Again:
"Where Ronald Reagan saw trade regulations, restrictions or tariffs that didn't serve the best interests of the American people, he would work to remove or amend them. Where Reagan saw that regulations, restrictions or tariffs that served our national interests, he would retain or create them."Posted more than once, BTW.
Your first exposure to a concept called the "average?"
Did Reagan raise or lower tariffs with Canada? Is it your suggestion that he did not? It was all just statistical sleight-of-hand?
If you only imported one product at the beginning and 1001 products at the end, yes.
Do you feel that in your example tariffs had risen?
Damn straight, look at my #45: "All presidents impose tariffs on one product or another, at one time or another."
Wasn't that posted two days ago? You're only getting to it now?
Did anyone on this or any other thread disagree?
There's an average for all imported products and an average for the changing subset of imported products subjected to tariffs.
Think hard. I know you can get it if ya try.
I remember that. It was the basis for your labeling Ronald Reagan a "protectionist". And don't forget your smear that "all protectionists" are hypocrites.
Water is wet, RINOs smear Reagan. Just facts of life.
Thanks to Wal-mart and other shortsighted business types, China is now building a blue water Navy and is in a position to start dictating internal policies for this nation.
Seriously, there is no free lunch.
And I told you that it doesn't matter for comparison purposes as long as it is consistently applied. Try thinking, for once.
Do you agree with 1rudeboy that that made Reagan a "protectionist" and a "hypocrite"?
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.