Not wasting my time at all. I’ve been following your posts with interest, but must admit that I’m not clear on your ultimate point(s) (either of you) as pertains to matters of tariffs.
Would both of you mind stating what your position is (I don’t wish to put words in your mouths)?
Thanks
Here was Bro’s point: “So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.”
Here is my point: You used the wrong data.
Ditto: "...what’s your point? I guess I’m missing something here."
PeaRidge: "My point was to correct his errors....
Actually the data he used, if culled correctly, would superficially appear to support the opposite of this [BroJoeK's] conclusion....
"Big error."
PeaRidge is focused on pointing out the errors of using numbers from "column 3" instead of "column 1" in the linked data.
I've been trying to use that data to support several conclusions, including that "lower tariff rates lead to higher revenues."
In fact, the data from columns 1 and 3 are quite similar, typically 90% the same, and thus most of my points are still correct, even when supported by "column 1" instead of "column 3" data.
In two cases (1815 and 1835), the data from "column 1" falls to 50% of "column 3's" total and these are the dates which invalidate the entire argument, according to PeaRidge.
I'd say these are simply dates to which we must add historical explanations of the circumstances, and once those circumstances are understood, my basic points remain intact.
So PeaRidge is to be commended for making a somewhat valid point and then sticking to it -- he will not be drawn into the broader discussion.
But that broader discussion is what I applied this particular data to, and even with corrections, the data still supports it, imho.