Posted on 02/17/2009 5:12:29 PM PST by BfloGuy
It was in an article posted on another thread...apparently one I read...but not posted to me so I can’t find it...as meat production has been moved from ag to manufacturing the numbers may have something to do with this...If I can find it, I will post it to you or freep mail it.
Some guy in the Commerce Department (?) is going to decide how much tariff is going to be.
It's it the same for all imported products or is there a different tariff for different items?
Who decides at the micro level and what is the basis for their decision?
More to the point I've had my eye on a way cool Vizio LCD for $499.99 at Costco. How much is that going to cost post tariff?
While I'm out I really like Italian Pignoli nuts. I'm not snobblish but I think the imported are superior to domestic. How much will that $15.99 bag be under your tariff?
Will it have a higher tariff than the TV, more or the same?
Will all imported goods be subject to a tariff or just some things. If the latter why?
If other countries decide that they'll start imposing tariffs what would be the consquences of few US exports? If the US couldn't domestically absorb all our output how would you proposed businesses put at risk because they can't export be handled? Allowed to fail or would you suggest government support?
The government makes decisions and rules as does the WTO concerning trade all the time...I would prefer our government looked at trade with each country and made agreements which profit the United States rather than bankrupting this country. Some trade agreements might work if the US government enforced them also...instead of letting foreign competitors break the rules and impose trade barriers on us. Any country with a trade barrier against our products needs to eliminate such barriers or be penalized with a tariff to be determined by the market value of our lost trade with such countries...sounds reasonable to me.
Alas, no answers other than “let the government do it”.
You “free traders” have completely demolished the US domestic economy, as current economic news and events demonstrate.
Now you’re saying trying to protect ourselves from your radical internationalist economics is ‘protetionism’ and a ‘mistake’? LOL. The mistake was to allow you people to run unchecked for so long in the world, and letting you loot US taxpayer dollars to pay for your destructive schemes.
History has shown over and over that “free trade” demolishes countries, it starts civil wars and is responsible for starvation and ethnic cleansing.
I say protect the US! It is the last and only hope for humanity.
I asked for some proof of that (links). I don't want to do business with Chicoms and I don't when I can help it. But nowhere do I see any laws or policy forcing me to. OTOH, your protectionist solution is all about government force. Forget about what independent and free people want to do with their money. You want to limit their choices by the power of government.
Garbage in, garbage out. Already addressed in one of my earliest posts.
The figure you provide for Walmart workers is bogus and if you don’t know this, you are not paying attention and thus are ill informed. If you do know this and continue to post this figure, then you are a liar.
The sugar tariffs, put in place by law and enforced by the USDA, are so complicated that many people give up worrying about it. After all, paying $2.25 for a five pound bag of sugar is no big deal. Unless you consider that we could be paying as low as a dollar for that five pound bag, and wholesale purchases of sugar by companies like Coca-Cola, Heinz, and Kraft would pay even less.
So here’s the Sugar Tariff in action:
1. First, USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation lends money each year to sugar cane processors at a specific rate per pound of sugar. The loans must be repaid, with interest, after nine months.
2. The processors use the money to operate their factories and to pay sugar growers for the cane or beets that they deliver to the mills. Should the price of raw sugar fall below the amount set by the government at the time of the loan, the sugar processing companies are allowed to forfeit their sugar in lieu of repaying the loan.
3. The law requires that this program operate at no net cost to the federal government. The government must then manipulate the market to keep sugar prices higher than the price at which the sugar companies would forfeit their product. Otherwise the government would be out of the money lent and still have the sugar to distribute, further adding to the governments net cost.
4. To manipulate the market, each year the USDA estimates how much sugar Americans will consume in the following year and how much sugar U.S. growers will send to market to meet consumers demand.
5. The USDA then establishes a quota for imports of sugar from foreign producers, such as the Dominican Republic, Brazil, the Philippines, and Australia. This quota allows just enough sugar in to meet demand, but not so much as to affect the already high prices.
Do you know, who benfits from this?
Not at all. I have said many times and on many threads, my neighbors, my town, my state, and my country come first. I have posted and contributed to buy American threads. As for the rest of the world and their cheap goods, it is a choice some people make. I might not like their choices but there is no denying that is a better definition of freedom than your idea of a citizen petitioning Congress for protectionism. Sure the latter would be better than WTO, but that doesn't make it good or useful or practical.
My due diligence and extra effort to find and buy local products is the proper mix of freedom and responsibility. Your solution is highly theoretical, does not instill responsibility and ultimately, inevitably limits freedom.
True. But if they sold all their assets they would still owe $50 billion in existing debt. Please look up their balance sheet before making rediculous statements like your above.
Actually, the way it works right now is that the head of the USTR writes the trade agreement (unconstitutionally, because that is Congress’s job). Then under ‘fastrack’ they give the deal to congress who votes yeah or nay. Congress cannot modify the agreement in any way, they can only vote for it, which they ALWAYS do no matter what devil is in the detail. Then the president signs it.
To know the full corruption going on in these ‘trade’ deals,you need to know that former USTR heads now work for globalist institutions like the World Bank.
To see more corruption, look at former secretary of state condoleeza rice. SHE is on the board of the Millenium challenge fund, which gets TAXPAYER money that allows a board consisting of billionaire CEOs from transnational corporations to allocate what is essentially foreign aid (also the job of Congrees, abdicated). Of COURSE they ‘allocate’ money in areas where their corporations do business, BRIBING foreign officials with OUR tax money to change their laws to make it favorable, not to America, not to the taxpayer funding it, but to the transnational corporation that wants to do business there.
The corruption of “free trade” is deep and devastating to our economy and our freedom to live under a constitutional government.
First I've never agreed that we decimated our economy with free trade. I did agree that lots of people made stupid short-sighted choices by buying Chicom crap. The true decimation of the economy came from the credit bubble, loose credit at the root of that (ask nyconse). As for the right of protectionists to petition Congress for protection against foreign competition, I think that is a bad idea for two main reasons. First it is impractical because politics will dictate who gets what, not economics. Some producers will get hurt (e.g. appliances) because other producers have more political clout (e.g. steel). Second, the imposition of tariffs will inevitably reduce freedom. Freedom is derived from responsibility. If I am educated and responsible I can make good consumer choices to help my neighbors and countrymen freely. If that responsibility is withheld from the citizens, they inevitably end up losing the freedom to make any choices.
A simple example: if enough people behave responsibly and get training and practice of gun ownership to protect themselves and their families, that will lead to more second amendment freedom. But if too many people are lazy or rely on the government, everyone will lose that freedom.
Sure. Sub Prime loans and crappy cars.
And paupers.
Tariffs don’t stop foreign competition, they just require foreigners pay something for the privilege to access the market. It helps ALL citizens because it allows the government to be run on tariffs not INCOME TAXES. Remember Independence, self reliance, prosperity and happiness comes when a citizen isn’t a wage slave to a government. It would kill the socialist direction of our government in a heartbeat, to go back to this fundamental principle of America.
Ok, you have a point there. I was mainly thinking about goods and services. Take Icelanders for example. If they are able to freely trade their frozen fish or whatever else they make for oranges, they will have a bit better life. It would not make sense to protect their own (obviously indoor) orange producers. But where they went wrong is deciding to borrow a trillion yen at low rates (or more precisely, offer CD's at high rates to Japanese) and then use those proceeds to buy banks in the rest of the Europe, that kind of trade destroyed their economy. If you want to call that "free trade", I guess I can't argue with that.
That's a great theory, too bad it won't work in practice. I prefer to advocate and teach responsibility, person to person, no government involved. That way people make a free and conscious decision to support their neighbors and countrymen with their purchases. It's more work, but it's practical and it does work.
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.