Replies

Again, I ask, how does a tariff prevent myself, yourself or anyone else from the creation or operation of an American corporation within our own borders?

Your fixation on "direct" cost is mystifying, as if you believe an "indirect" cost is less of a cost in any case. I'll leave you to determine whether the following are direct or not, and you can argue semantics elsewhere.

The U.S. imposes a tariff on imports. This action can impede the "creation or operation" of an American business in the following manners:

1. The EU, for example, retaliates by imposing duties on American exports. More duties, less exports. Ergo, we have a restriction on the operation of American business.
2. Restricting the available market for an export raises the barrier to entry for that market. Thus, we have a restriction of the creation of American business.
3. Under the unbrella of the tariff, domestic producers of the "protected" product raise prices, shifting the cost of the tariff regime to producers farther down the economic ladder.

Naturally, this discussion of cost is not comprehensive, and can be re-applied until we reach the consumer, provided he can purchase the product without being priced out of the market, or provided the consumer has not lost his job as part of the cost.

" The U.S. imposes a tariff on imports. This action can impede the "creation or operation" of an American business in the following manners: 1. The EU, for example, retaliates by imposing duties on American exports. More duties, less exports. Ergo, we have a restriction on the operation of American business."

So you are openly admitting that American corporations are unable or are too incompetent to find other markets for their products? Or are you admitting that the neo-socialist model where the government forces our products into markets is the acceptable method of trade and manufacturing, as is the EU model?

"2. Restricting the available market for an export raises the barrier to entry for that market. Thus, we have a restriction of the creation of American business."

So according to your logic, I must export to Europe (based on your example) instead of searching out for more viable markets, like India for example, because without Europe I can not own a business in the United States? Your logic is twisted. You are assuming that we must protect large multi-national corporations with direct government intervention (ADM comes to mind) by subsidizing our exports to keep them cheap enough to compete with the Eurosocialists. Hence, you are advocating socialism and not allowing American capitalists to expand and compete in the same manner which you proclaim to defend. You do not want "free trade". You are advocating the globalist "managed trade" model which is based on the WTO socialist "everyone must be equal" theory.

"3. Under the unbrella(sic) of the tariff, domestic producers of the "protected" product raise prices, shifting the cost of the tariff regime to producers farther down the economic ladder."

And under the umbrella you protect, income taxation has been the model, penalizing those same capitalists you allege to promote. I could create a company and compete anywhere in the world if I could lower my prices and not pay opressive personal and corporate income and capital gains taxes. You think it is better to allow foreign capitalists to have an "equal footing" by allowing the US government to penalize the producers. You need to get into business for yourself and deal with other nations. You'll find that if you could produce a good or service at a lower rate with the quality we are famous for, then we would dominate the world markets.

Tariffs worked fine for 150 years plus in this nation. The income tax which has replaced it is why we can not compete. I want to offer congrats on your coming out of the closet:

You support oppressive penalties on American capitalists (i.e. the income tax and captial gains tax) but do not feel it is beneficial to tax foreign producers. You think it is acceptable to allow American capitalists to pay foreign taxes, but not vice versa.

Now that we know where you stand, your postings finally make sense. Yet you still have not answered the question. There is zero impact on an American capitalist creating an American business. There is only an impact when and if they elect to participate overseas. It is not mandatory that I or anyone else do so. Your implication in your example that it is proves your debate has no merit.