It means exactly that.
When discussing this concept, I like to mention the movie "Kidco." It is about a bunch of kids that sold horse manure from their father's stables. It became quite a business.
The bad guy was a government official who was trying to fine them for not paying sales tax.
The climax of the movie was a court room scene where the Kid asked the man who sold feed to his father if he paid sales tax on the feed. The man said "yes."
So the kid pointed out that the poop coming out of the Horse is the same feed that went into the horse, and sales tax had already been paid on it when his father bought the feed.
"Your Honor, the state wants to tax both ends of the horse!"
Trade is exactly like that. Whether you put the tax on the front of the horse (exports) or the rear of the horse (imports) it is the exact same stuff getting taxed.
Money earned from exports has no value until it pays for imports. It is the exact same money being taxed whether you tax it before it gets to Europe, or after it has come back in trade goods from Europe.
One would think it unnecessary to have to explain basic trade economics to people on a conservative forum.
They can't seem to grasp....because it would be damned inconvenient for them to grasp....that the exporters were the importers. They had to rent the ships and pay the ship's crew and the insurance for the voyage. If the ships return empty with nothing in their holds, that is going to eat into their revenue from selling their cotton, etc considerably. So they filled the holds with manufactured goods they could sell in the US so the ships would not run empty back across the Atlantic. They then got hit with tariffs on those goods. As the owners of the goods, THEY and not the shipping company or the port where they landed paid the tariff.
its not a difficult concept to grasp. The owner of the goods pays the tariff. If Walmart brings a container ship full of Chinese crap and it lands at a US port it does not matter whether its Long Beach, CA or New Orleans, LA or New York, NY. Walmart has to pay the tariff. They own the goods. Exact same deal back then.
Simply a false statement.
Money earned from exports can be used to buy locally produced products. It simply can. I didn't believe anyone thought otherwise, but I am incorrect.
People who buy imports are not necessarily the same people who produce exports.
They can easily be different people.
The idea you can simplify and claim Exports pay for Imports, and the people who are exporting are paying the tarriffs on imports, is simply false.
I think you are making a "balance of payments" argument, claiming money out of a country has to eventually be equalized by the money coming into the country. In theory, over a long time, it might be correct. However, "balance of payments" inequities have existed for decades.
In practice it is much more complicated and uncertain. As I recall, you ignore the production of gold and silver in California and the West.
But gold and silver could directly pay for imports, and they were not produced in the South.
The businesses in the USA earned large amounts from service in shipping which could directly be used to pay for imports.
Here is a paper on U.S. balance of payments from 1790 to 1860.