Ayn Rand’s Case against Tariffs

American Thinker ^

[DIRTYSECRET]

China, once a communist backwater, has emerged as the world’s factory floor, producing everything from iPhones to plastic brushes.

It’s a pragmatic choice, not a philosophical one. A CEO doesn’t cite Rand when moving a factory to Shenzhen; he cites shareholder value.

Tariffs, intended to lure these companies back, instead add insult to injury, failing to address the root causes of their departure.

[DIRTYSECRET]

3 weeks to read the novel. My problem with libertarians is their heads are buried in the sand. Trump may very well bring tariffs down world-wide after the bitter pill is swallowed. That's his motive but how does one compete with slave labor? Reagan confronted Japan over their predatory policies regarding Harley Davidson vs. Kawasaki.

Slaves-owning another human being. The ultimate form of capitalism.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Slaves in China, not Japan.

[brownsfan]

Yeah, the free traitors would disapprove. Of course, the free traitors cheered the lost of domestic manufacturing capability.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Get rid of the income tax and pay for the government with tariffs. That’ll work. Add more sin taxes.

Too much confusion on what works best. In the meantime count on leftist fighting us every step of the way. If the economy tanks all bets are off.

[chief lee runamok]

Those jackasses that encouraged and facilitated the export of USA
manufacturing, etc., should be hung on the nearest oak tree.

Unions massively inflating wages added to the demolition of
manufacturing jobs.

[Mr. K]

All things being fair and Rand would be exactly right. But when all other countries on the planet are using unfair tariffs against us we need to do something back.

I don’t think Ayn Rand considered things like Canada charging 250% tariff on dairy products

[TexasGator]

“Slaves in China, not Japan.”

Semi-slaves in Japan.

[ComputerGuy]

Rand is/was wrong about this one.

[Leaning Right]

> Tariffs, intended to lure these companies back, instead add insult to injury, failing to address the root causes of their departure. <

That’s kinda, sorta right. Tariffs alone aren’t enough. We also need to cut out all the suffocating regulations and reduce taxes. This will give our domestic industry a chance.

But then there’s the foreign slave labor problem, as you mentioned DIRTYSECRET. How to compete against that?

[gloryblaze]

For crying out loud, President Trump is working like a driven dog to address all the items on the writer’s checklist right along with the tariffs!

Talk about ungrateful ... SMH

[DIRTYSECRET]

**Semi-slaves in Japan.**

Correct.

[Raymann]

Rand wrote a lot more then Atlas Shrugged. She made it clear in her writings that she wanted NO trade between the US and the communists.

[BitWielder1]

Trump is using Tariffs as a tool to right a wrong.
The long goal is zero tariffs all around.

People want Trump to fix all problems without actually changing anything.

[DoodleBob]

A little picture is in order.

No matter how you spin it, tariffs effectively result in a transfer of consumer surplus to producer surplus (i.e., consumers lose, producers win), government wins by collecting tariff revenues, and inefficiencies/deadweight loss is created.

That's the theory.

Now, just like theory tells us countries devaluing their currency leads to demise, the reality of the Bank of England letting the British Pound float in 1992 and the resulting non- calamity is worth noting.

Trump has been pretty clear that the tariffs are a negotiating club. I don’t believe the intent is for these tariffs to become fixed. Once countries negotiate, there should be some return to equilibrium.

But American Thinker - my go-to authority for economics education (/s) - is being rather cheeky or stupid when it printed recently:

The National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed the 2018–2019 U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. They found that for every 10% tariff, retail prices rose 1–2%. So even a 50% tariff, if applied, might cause retail prices to edge up 5–10% — not 50%. That’s a far cry from the alarmist headlines.

Yes, 50% isn’t 5-10%.

But 5-10% isn’t zero. Indeed, when inflation was between 5-10% under Biden, FR was on fire with anger. And rightly so…

….but Trump implements inflationary policies, am I supposed to cheer for a possible return to Bidenflation? In the meantime, alleged conservatives sound like Occupy Wall Street types when the markets take a nose dive. “It’s a needed correction.” Blah blah blah.

Let’s not be coy. This COULD be bad. Time will tell if Trump is an economic mad genius or a fool.

Net, net, net…I’d still prefer Trump over Harris.

[kosciusko51]

As long as the income tax is enshrined in the Constitution, this will never happen.

[DIRTYSECRET]

What if Trump is able to get rid of the income tax? More money to buy tariffed goods. Retaliatory countries would help our domestics. Still there are products and materials we just can’t do without.

Slave labor. We got 1% of our population doing nothing in our jails. That’s 3 million. Put them to work. I’d even pay them the minimum wage for when they get out.

[TauntedTiger]

I think we need to try teaching the meaning of “reciprocal” to the masses. Seems like a simple concept but simpletons are not getting it.

[DIRTYSECRET]

**Rand wrote a lot more than Atlas Shrugged. She made it clear in her writings that she wanted NO trade between the US and the communists.**

I do remember in an interview saying you have nothing to do with your enemies.

Fountainhead-another classic. Her writing in a rape scene reminded me a bit of Dagny Taggert in Atlas. She was a free spirit when it came to men so I wonder what Rand’s issue with sex was all about.

[Raymann]

She was still a woman...the man she wanted left her, simple as that.

[DIRTYSECRET]

You know more than me-that’s good.