Replies

"I'd rather we attracted the investment here in the US to continue to build our economy rather than having people investing in China."

People invest in China because they see the money they're making off the US market. A lot of investment goes into manufacturing and support for exports to the United States. A well-designed protectionist policy would also have the ripple-effect of reducing China's value as a place to invest. Companies would rather earn some profit than no profit. If they're expecting that tariffs were going to gradually be increased to the point that it will become cheaper to make their products in the United States, they will immediately start re-investing the massive profits they currently are earning to build/move those manufacturing assets in advance.

"However, our high taxes, inefficient and expensive manufacturing, and to some extent protectionism is making investing elsewhere more attractive."

High taxes are definitely a problem, but even moves to high-efficiency manfacturing in many areas would not be enough due to the insurmountable wage/regulation/currency-value differences between the US and China. Those cost differences are what can, and should be, wiped out through the use of tariffs.

"Honda can make cars in the US and make money doing it. Ford and GM can't."

And what percentage of those Honda vehicles are of foreign content? There's a considerable cost difference between final assembly of imported parts and final assembly of domestically made parts.

"The United States started out from British Colonies. The US was originally one big British foreign investment. We didn't go our first 170 years without foreign investment. We were a foreign investment that rebelled because we were treated unfairly."

And that experience is what pushed the Founding Fathers towards protectionism, further reinforced by the economic damage of the War of 1812.

"One is we definitely have abundant natural resources. However, in addition to that we invested in being able to harvest those resources efficiently. We built the infrastructure to be able to move those resources where they needed to go quickly and efficiently."

The overwhelming majority of natural-resource investment, and the infrastructure for it, were the results of the domestic demand of satisfying protectionism-induced American industry.

"Many, many important inventions have come from the United States because we learned to invest in technology and invest in the people and the resources we needed to continue to improve how we do things."

Yes, a lot of it done here in the United States, by dollars from our internal market from American businesses. That's why though we were considerably protectionist, we still led the world in the number of inventions and level of technology.

"However, much also came from foreign investment, and as that foreign investment produced a good return, those foreign investors reinvested their profits in us companies or US branches of foreign companies because we had the world's fastest growing economy."

Only over the last 4 decades. Before that it was overwhelmingly internal market reinvestment.

"You can be protectionist in some aspects of your policies while being active internationally in other aspects of your policies."

The problem is we're barely being protectionist at all. Just look at the increasing dependence upon foreign parts for our military. If ANYPLACE we should have an absolute minimal dependence upon foreign imports it should be for the military. But within MRBM/cruise-missile range of China is enough sources that could bring practically all of our precision-guided weapons, aircraft, armored vehicle and ship combat systems manufacture to a grinding halt in 90 days or less.

"However, long term you're either relying on someone else to deal with the problems of fascists and communists. You're assuming that someone else will keep those who would control others through force in check."

Ah, but there's the problem. We're so fixated on small 3rd world nations with 4th rate militaries we're not even seeing the monster that we're growing with our own trade policies. In the short-term Islamofascism is the greatest enemy, in the long-term it is China that is our greatest threat. We either start choking them off now, or there will be no keeping them in check except through first-use of nuclear weapons.

"A isolationist government can't be a superpower. A protectionist government can be one, but they can't hold onto it unless their competitors are also protectionists and you have more resources than they do."

A nation with a well-designed protectionist policy can maintain world-power status. Can it prevent others from also building up to world-power status? Maybe not. But history itself has shown the massive protectionism-induced success of the United States that so far other nations have not been able to come close to matching without feeding off of American free trade policies or using well-designed protectionist policies themselves.

"We definitely became a world power because of our industrial power and infrastructure."

Which was overwhelmingly protectionism induced.

"That's exactly the kind of thing that China is doing to grow their economy. However, they're encouraging foreign investment to modernize their businesses, and not just heavy industry."

With the goal of building a nation capable of smashing the United States.

"However, killing the BD Ports deal is pure stupidity because it's being done for the wrong reasons. It's not being blocked for national security reasons. That should be abundantly clear to anyone who's paying attention to the details and who's watching how Congress is not trying to block the deal for things other than national security because the deal is passing muster on issues of security."

It's being killed because the politicians sense the general public is getting tired of relying on the Middle East, where their dollars are already getting used against them with each barrel of oil that we buy. Why give them another funding source? Regardless of how closely you try and monitor them, there is going to be money diverted to terrorism. It makes energy independence even more imperative, so we can cut them off completely.

A well-designed protectionist policy would also have the ripple-effect of reducing China's value as a place to invest.

So you're going to use tariffs to raise the costs of Chinese goods so that they cost as much as American goods. What are you going to about the very significant amount of inflation that would create?

What are you going to do when foreign countries retaliate?

Since we have a large trade deficit, a trade war can be though of as hurting them more than us to some extent, however the problem is that it's going to take a lot more money to produce a lot of those things here.

To produce them we're going to need import a lot of raw materials. We're going to need to import a LOT more oil. We're going to need to produce a lot more energy. That's not necessarily bad if it helps us grow our economy, but we're going to need to trade with other countries to get those things, and our increased demand is going to drive up prices.

We had amazing growth during the industrial revolution because we had vast natural resources that we exploited. We got used to having a lot of stuff. We now buy, use and waste more stuff than any other country in the world. To keep ourselves living in this lifestyle, we're going to have to import a lot of materials. The other option is we're going to have to learn to do without a lot of junk.

High taxes are definitely a problem, but even moves to high-efficiency manfacturing in many areas would not be enough due to the insurmountable wage/regulation/currency-value differences between the US and China. Those cost differences are what can, and should be, wiped out through the use of tariffs.

You can use tariffs to deal with small differences, not with large ones. If you use large tariffs, you're basically cutting yourselves off from the rest of the world. Eventually the rest of the world that takes advantage of the benefits of trade will pass you by.

Tariffs are also good to address short term problems. For example if a hurricane decimates a particular industry domestically, so we use tariffs to protect the industry while it rebuilds so that rebuilding is a sound investment.

And what percentage of those Honda vehicles are of foreign content?

Honda uses a higher percentage of American made parts in their car than most American car companies. If you don't believe me, just look at the stickers at the dealers. They are required to put the percentage of US parts right on the sticker.

The problem is we're barely being protectionist at all. Just look at the increasing dependence upon foreign parts for our military. If ANYPLACE we should have an absolute minimal dependence upon foreign imports it should be for the military. But within MRBM/cruise-missile range of China is enough sources that could bring practically all of our precision-guided weapons, aircraft, armored vehicle and ship combat systems manufacture to a grinding halt in 90 days or less.

I work in the military avionics industry. We export far, far more military hardware than we import.

We aren't building a lot of heavy armored vehicles or ships right now, at least not compared to the past. However, it's not because we're importing them from elsewhere. Of what we are building, a lot of it's being built for export.

Ah, but there's the problem. We're so fixated on small 3rd world nations with 4th rate militaries we're not even seeing the monster that we're growing with our own trade policies.

China isn't just growing because of our trade policies. They are growing because they are making huge investments in their future. They are building the infrastructure, and thinking long term while doing it. They are encouraging foreign investment for the purpose of long term growth. They have embraced a lot of free market attitudes while still managing to maintain tight control over their people.

It's questionable how long they can continue to embrace free market principles while still maintaining their tight control over their own people. However, in currently, one thing is obvious. The are catching us in technology. They are investing in infrastructure. They have lots of resources and an incredible number of people.

If we adopt protectionist tariffs, we can shrink their markets and slow their growth, but we hurt ourselves at the same time, so it's not obvious if there is really a net benefit to that approach, and it only delays things.

In the end, we need to learn to compete with a economic rival that's not a pitiful as the EU currently is. We are becoming more and more like the EU. Protectionist policies, too many worker "protections", to high of taxes, too much government interference.

The Chinese may lose control over their people as their free market policies grow a powerful and active middle class. Eventually their people are going to demand a higher standard of living. However, by then they will have built up an infrastructure that will rival or surpass or own. They will have the military might to truly be a super power militarily as well as economically.

Right now we face two big threats. We have the Islamic radicals which would likely lead us to a new dark age in their efforts to bend the world to their will. The second threat we face is China dominating us economically and militarily.

Tariffs aren't going to stop the Chinese. They are doing too many things right. They are doing the right things to invest long term. The only way to compete with the Chinese is to improve productivity, to invest in our future, and to continue to innovate.