Tariffs may be needed to get off the ground, I don't know. After getting off the ground, tariffs aren't good though, obviously. Apparently early Americans didn't realize that because almost everyone including Southerners supported low and high tariffs until 1820. We have the advantage of an extra 150 years in results to help our opinion. The only reason the South turned against tariffs was because after decades of putting all their eggs in the slavery supported agriculture market, they fell behind industrially unlike Illinois and Indiana who, without slavery, industrialized nicely along with continued the development of agriculture. The South made their own bed.
Then you do not agree because you are still asserting the same illegitimate "dumping" argument. According to the rules of economics, dumping is actually beneficial to the recieving country because it permits the acquisition of the dumped good at a lower price. As for aggressive dumping, there is no known case of it ever successfully achieving what you claim it seeks.
And you're willing to take a chance on this theory? All it takes is one time to lose our steel industry and we may be up the creek without a paddle.
No. I do not.
I do.
First off, the industry isn't going to "die" from foreign competition.
Not competition, dumping.
It will shrink, but remain to meet the demands that are not fulfilled by trade.
But maybe it will shrink too much to save us in case of sudden war.
Second, so-called foreign dumping means cheaper steel for us. If anything we should be sending those countries that supposedly pursue such a policy a note of thanks.
Until they attack us and we can't fight back because we don't have the capacity to manufacture weapons of war.
On a same note, Louisiana has some of the best sugarcain land in America, yet New Orleans became a major shipping port nicely.
Well duh! LOL
In the case of both cities, geography and the market created needs for that which they could offer. But geographical resources also meant that the rural land around Chicago and was better used growing wheat or corn or whatever they grow, just as the land of Louisiana was better used growing sugarcain.
So why didn't Louisiana industrialize so that tariffs would've not affected them as bad as the North. Slavery, that's why.
No. They went against protectionist tariffs because those tariffs held the country itself behind where it would have been without those tariffs.
So now you're saying that tariffs were equally bad against the North as the South? That goes against everything your "slavery wasn't the reason" brothers say.
There are some today who plead with America to develop solar powered cars. Those cars are not developed though because there is no demand for them and no place for them in the free market. Just the same, the free market had left the south with advantages in agriculture and exports.
No more than the North. Like I said, Illinios and Indiana has some of the best farmland in America. Yet they industrialized and the South didn't. It was because the South put all their eggs in the slavery basket.
Because of that there was no need to build factories, and in fact doing so would have been illogical since those factories would be comparatively disadvantaged to regions and countries elsewhere where manufacturing was the advantageous economic sector instead of agriculture.
Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland as the South Yet they industrialized nicely. The difference was that the South put all their eggs in the slavery basket.
Industrializing would not have alleviated the tariffs because protective tariffs bite the country as a whole. By its very nature a tariff diminishes a country's welfare in comparison to what would be without that tariff.
That goes against the theory that tariffs hurt the South worse than the North. You said yourself that since the South wadn't industrialized that tariffs transferred wealth from the South to the North. Are you backing away from that now? You're disagreeing with everything I'm saying to be argumentive but you're starting to contradict yourself.
No, not really. They simply knew that their region was comparatively advantaged in agriculture and, operating in a capitalist model, produced in the area where they had that advantage. It would have been absurd and irrational for them to have pursued a sector where they had a comparative disadvantage.
They were advantaged in agriculture because they practiced slavery. Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland yet they industrialized nicely. The difference was slavery.
They certainly may have, but their tariff policy from the 1820's to 1860 was consistently free trade. Therefore I am not sure what your argument is.
That they supported tariffs until 1820 when slavery put them behind industrially.
It will not die even without tariffs - simply decrease in size to the level necessary to meet home demand after imports.
But it may be not enough to save us in war.
Potentially, but no reason exists that in an unnamed war we will not be able to (a) acquire steel from comparatively advantaged allies...
Ha! You have a lot of faith in the more socialist countries of the world! No, we need to keep our steel capacity up to meet war needs if those needs arise.
...or (b) increase domestic production of that steel in the event that those allies are unable to match our demands. It's not like the steel ores are going anywhere anytime soon.
You shut a steel plant down you can't just go back in one day and fire it back up. That takes infrastructure and time.
For the same reason that the south built ocean-going ports while Illinois did not.
Chicago is one of the busiest ports in the world. That's not it.
In each case the market dictated what industries were best suited to each region and they developed accordingly.
Slavery spoiled the South to the point they fell behind industrially and started to get bit by tariffs. They made their own bed.
For moral reasons, yes it was. We've already been over that many times.
And for economic reasons. It held them back industrially.
Because there was no geographic comparative advantage at the time. On a similar note, the south of 1860 had many ocean ports equipped for heavy exporting.
So did the midwest, all along the great lakes.
Does the fact that the south had them mean that Indiana and Illinois should have also had them?
They did!
Fair enough. In some select few cases, I'll agree on vital war industries. As our conversation indicates though, your concept of a threatened vital war industry is much broader than mine. Yours includes steel. Mine does not.
What in the world is a vital war industry if steel isn't?! It takes steel to build almost all weapons of war!
Not necessarily, had they acted with restrained. Some southerners in 1860 urged Congress to refuse the Morrill bill and instead make slight adjustments to the free-trade revenue tariff to improve revenue totals and meet the budget. They did not do that though. Instead The Lincoln and his party went all out for redistributionist tariffs.
You lie by saying "redistribution". That wasn't their purpose. That's nothing new for you neo-Confederates though, the truth isn't on your side, you have to spruce it up to make a point.
Tariffs designed to cut off trade do not provide significant funding. The Morrill tariff was such a tariff.
Yes we know, but apparently that wasn't as clear in the 1800 because tariffs went up and down all through those years.
Protectionist tariffs are not designed to raise money. In fact they kill off the source of revenue tariff reciepts, that being trade.
That must not have been clear then because tariffs went up and down all through the 1800s.
I don't have the stats for other years immediately on hand,...
You don't!? You raise hell on this site every day year after year on the same subject but you don't even know the tariff rates through the early 1800s?! They did hit 50% before 1820 with southern support. They thought it was the way to fund the government since they didn't have an income tax. We know now a low flat income tax is the best way to fund the government but they didn't realize that then. We have an extra 150 to 200 years of results to confirm our opinion.
...but the last time the tariff had been a high protectionist level before the war was prior to the 1846 cut. For those years from 1846 to 1860, the tariff had been consistently lowered.
Yeah, it went up and down. Just like the income tax goes up and down now depending on which party controls legislation.
Not in the ones preceding the war. The last high tariff before Morrill was in 1846. Everything in between was a low rate that got progressively lower with more cuts in the 1850's.
Between 1790 and 1865+, it went up and down about with the same frequency the income tax goes up and down now.
The receipts were used by the government but those receipts were small. Since the tariff was protectionist its real cost was in the trade it killed off.
So the receipts were meant for government spending. Glad to see you admit that.
Exactly. They were raised, as I have previously noted, to "protect" selected domestic industries from foreign competition.
Southerners supported this policy until slavery got them behind industrially.
That is because tariffs became increasingly protectionist in the 1820's. The rates were also raised in that period to some of the highest ever, often called the "tariff of abominations."
Tariffs were high on and off before 1820.
No. It is because protectionist tariffs were doing more net harm to the country than good. That is what protectionist tariffs do.
So the South wasn't hurt worse by high tariffs than the North? This is completely opposite what you said before.
They are called protectionist because they seek to "protect" a specified industry from foreign competition.
So they are meant to protect. Glad to see you admit that.
In reality though, that industry gains slightly while the rest of us lose greatly. In sum this inevitably leads to a net loss on the whole for the country.
We know that now. Apparently, they didn't know that then because they went up and down. Or they didn't have a choice because there wasn't an income tax.
They had plenty of history to confirm it then as well.
The Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, didn't it?
Adam Smith observed the problems caused by trade barriers in 1776. His works were well known to the founding fathers and those after him.
Reagans opinions are well known too, that doesn't mean everyone supports them.
David Ricardo then refined his theory into a finished form that is the central pillar of everything we know of tariffs today. He did that in the 1810's and his work was also well known. To suggest that they did not know how tariffs worked in 1860 is accordingly absurd.
Then why did Southerners support high tariffs before 1820 if they were so sure they were destructive?
Where? All he says of it is this "The American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class." There are no words of praise contained anywhere in that statement. He called it a capitalist tool of the bourgeouis.
Got an exact quote?
I did not say Lincoln was a communist.
Then why do you quote Marx if you don't think Lincoln was a Communist?
But if you do want to explore that issue, I will note for a fact that Lincoln shared in subscription to the labor theory of value with the communists.
So you're saying Lincoln was a communist?
When Marx said "working class," he WAS saying so.
Says you. But you're wrong on all your other assumptions.
That is how he wrote. That is the style in which he composed his theories. That is the choice of words he used. If you doubt me, read any of his major writings on communism. The terminology is identical and is used interchangably with "proletariat."
If he would'be meant "communist" and "proletariat" in his quotes, he would've said them. You're making things up and adding to what he said like neo-Confederates always do because truth is not on your side.
Since that is the purpose of the book in which he states that, yes. We do.
He's just another man with an opinion to me.
That seems to be a large part of your problem.
LOL You want me to study Marx? Why?
If you were familiar with how Marx wrote and the style and terminology he used, you would see immediately that he was talking about communism.
And why is this important to me? If he would've meant "communism", he would've said "communism". You had to add it to spruce it up to fit your agenda.
It's also his theory of communism, and the same theory he was expressing while praising Lincoln.
So you're saying that's proof that Lincoln was a communist? Why didn't he say "communism" if he meant "communism"?
Because he chose to use a synonym that, in his terminology, meant the same thing.
Instead of using a synonym, why didn't he just use the real word?
To use an analogy, I could observe that you are "of low mental capacity" or I could observe that you are "stupid." Both statements convey same thing because the terms are synonymously used.
Both mean the same thing. But using the word "working class" does not mean your speaking of Communism.
Okay. Well I am stating as an economic principle that in most substantial circumstances, they simply aren't needed to "get off the ground" and end up doing more harm than good. That is because the gain to the infant industry is more than offset by the harm the tariff does to the country, resulting in a net loss.
Apparently early Americans didn't realize that because almost everyone including Southerners supported low and high tariffs until 1820.
Seeing as the free trade concepts that explained how tariffs were problematic came about in the 1810's due to Ricardo, this is to be expected. In the 1820's they had economic concepts about tariffs that were previously undeveloped.
We have the advantage of an extra 150 years in results to help our opinion.
We do, but in 1860 the nation similarly had the advantage of 40 years of experience on the same subject. The speeches made in opposition to the Morrill act further demonstrate a competant grasp of Ricardan concepts back then. In effect there was no legitimate reason then for protection and no substantial one beyond unfairly enriching protected industries at a cost to the rest. Those who advocated the protectionist arguments in 1860 were peddling antiquated and debunked nonsense for their own time, to say nothing of today.
The only reason the South turned against tariffs was because after decades of putting all their eggs in the slavery supported agriculture market, they fell behind industrially
You are still peddling nonsense. An manufacturing based economy is not inherently a "good" thing for all countries and regions everywhere. You are offering a command-style "one size fits all" approach to economic market specialization, and under capitalism things simply do not work that way. That manufacturing was good for the north does not mean it also had to be good for the south. This is especially so when the south had a comparative disadvantage in manufacturing combined with a comparative advantage in another market, agriculture. The south formed agriculturally and is still heavily agricultural to this day because agricultural types of production are its geographic strengths - the markets in which it has comparative advantages. If you doubt me, go try and grow sugarcane or citrus fruit in Minnesota. You will learn why the south went towards those types of agriculture very quickly, and it isn't due to a shunning of your fallacious "one size fits all" belief of paving the country in smoky factories and coal processing plants.
they fell behind industrially unlike Illinois and Indiana who, without slavery, industrialized nicely along with continued the development of agriculture.
Those two states industrialized in some regions because the markets there made it so. That doesn't mean their factories are good for everywhere else, nor does it mean that all agriculturally strong regions should try to industrialize like them, especially when doing so is comparatively disadvantageous.
To use an analogy, most people would agree that a deep sea-going port is an economically "good" thing to have. In 1860 the south was well equiped with ports of this nature, such as New Orleans, to conduct their exports. Therefore those port facilities were a good, economically advanced thing for them to have. Now, does that mean similar ports are good for everywhere? Does that mean I should criticize Wyoming as economically backwards since it doesn't have one? Or how about Vermont? Iowa doesn't have one either. Nor do South Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and many other states. Does that mean all these states are backwards? Does the fact that none of them built port facilities mean that they "made their own bed" and chose to resist something that is economically good? Of course not, and in fact it would NOT be in the interest of any of these states to build seaports because such seaports would be comparatively disadvantaged from the get go for economic reasons intrinsic to each of those states respectively - they are all landlocked and its not economically viable to built ports way up river in the middle of a landlocked state! Just the same, it was economically wise to put steel refineries near the steel in the north where that industry was. But that doesn't mean we have to also stick one in a Louisiana marsh where the land is better for sugarcane simply on the grounds that it is a "good thing" when we build it in Pennsylvania.
And you're willing to take a chance on this theory?
Yes. Cause I know that mathematically, "dumped" prices are good for us.
All it takes is one time to lose our steel industry and we may be up the creek without a paddle.
Nonsense. Unless you think aliens are coming along to beam them out from underneath the earth's surface, domestic iron ores are not going to go anywhere if somebody "dumps" steel here. Not even the industry will disappear as (a) dumping simply adjusts domestic production to a smaller level and (b) no significant barrier to reentry exists in the event that conditions change and more domestic steel is demanded.
I do.
You may believe that to your heart's content, but it is still an economically fallacious way of thinking with no basis in the reality of how markets work.
Not competition, dumping.
Dumping is by its very nature foreign competition. That competition occurs by way of lowering the world price of a product through the low "dumped" prices of the good being imported.
But maybe it will shrink too much to save us in case of sudden war.
How so? The iron ores aren't going anywhere, and there is no significant domestic barrier to reentry into a domestic market.
Until they attack us and we can't fight back because we don't have the capacity to manufacture weapons of war.
Exactly who are "they"? Do you mean to suggest that every steel producing country in the world will collaborate together all at once and wage war on us? Even if it were true that a steel exporter suddenly became our enemy, what is to stop us from going to another steel exporter elsewhere in the world who is our ally? And what is to stop us from increasing domestic production to compensate for the dropoff in imports?
Well duh! LOL
I'm glad you see the obvious situation of New Orleans. Now tell me - does New Orleans' role as a port and economic good mean that every state should have its own New Orleans? Does it mean that Colorado should build a port of its own, to be like New Orleans since the port of New Orleans is economically good?
So why didn't Louisiana industrialize so that tariffs would've not affected them as bad as the North.
For the same reason that you (hopefully) do not burn the contents of your wallet for the purpose of allowing you to qualify for welfare.
So now you're saying that tariffs were equally bad against the North as the South?
Against the northern people as a whole it caused a net loss in their welfare. But by regional comparison, those losses were even harder on the south.
No more than the North.
If you believe that the south was no more advantaged in agriculture production than the north, you are free to open a citrus and sugarcane farm in Minnesota. Report back to me when you are done though, as I would like to know if you have as much luck there as you would planting the same goods in Florida or Louisiana. If you do, then your statement is valid. If not, as I predict will be the case, then you will have just seen a demonstration on how the south possessed a comparative advantage over the north in those agricultural markets.
Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland as the South
Good for wheat and corn, that is. But farmland is not a generic brand of aspirin. Try growing oranges in Indiana or cotton in Indiana. Try growing sugarcane in Minnesota. Try growing rice in Montana. Each of those states has its own share of quality farmland, but that does not mean that farmland will grow everything the southern farmland does with the same quality and in the same ammount. It's a key rule of farming - climate matters.
That goes against the theory that tariffs hurt the South worse than the North.
No it doesn't. Something can be bad for all of us yet worse for some than others. Winter freezes (not snow, but those yucky, nasty ice storms), for example, are bad for the nation as a whole because nobody likes them. When the whole nation (continental states) is hit by one, everybody is negatively impacted. But for various reasons, the storm will likely be worse for residents of northern Pennsylvania than it will be for residents of gulf coast Mississippi because the severity in which it strikes will be greater. In the case of the tariffs, their negative impact on the southern economy was significantly more severe than on the northern economy, though both were harmed.
They were advantaged in agriculture because they practiced slavery.
No, not really. Slavery was an attribute - the labor attribute - of their economy. That economy developed toward agriculture though because of climate, soil type, and geographic ability to export.
Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland
Not for growing cotton, oranges, and sugarcane. In farming, climate matters.
Ha! You have a lot of faith in the more socialist countries of the world!
Since when are the only people who produce steel socialists?
No, we need to keep our steel capacity up to meet war needs if those needs arise.
Why not let the market adjust to that capacity and ration out that resource through its own mechanisms? There is no real reason why it wouldn't work just as well, and it would save us all the time, effort, and costs of fooling around with tariffs and subsidies.
You shut a steel plant down you can't just go back in one day and fire it back up.
What about a week? Or a month? It happens all the time absent a war - when an company needs a new warehouse due to market demands, they build one. When they need it fast, they speed up the construction. Just the same, when America needed ships fast in WWII, they sped up the construction and met the demand.
Chicago is one of the busiest ports in the world.
But it is a Great Lakes port catering exclusively to traffic that makes use of a network of internal waterways on the North American continent. It may serve some of the same functions as New Orleans, but it is not the same type of port. Just as it would make no sense to rebuild New Orleans on lake ontario, it would make no sense to rebuild Chicago on the coast of Florida.
So did the midwest, all along the great lakes.
Great lakes ports are just that - great lakes ports. They are not the same thing as oceanic ports. Similar, yes. But not the same.
They did!
Illinois did not have oceanic ports. It had ports for an internal waterway consisting of the lakes. Just as farmland in Illinois differs from farmland in Louisiana, shipping in Chicago differs from shipping in New Orleans.
What in the world is a vital war industry if steel isn't?!
Uranium.
You lie by saying "redistribution". That wasn't their purpose.
Sure it was as that is what protective tariffs do. They redistribute the consumer surplus into the producer surplus among other things - it's a matter of economic fact. Live with it.
Yes we know, but apparently that wasn't as clear in the 1800 because tariffs went up and down all through those years.
To the contrary - it was as available to human knowledge as anything we've got from about 1820 on, and prior to that it was partially known.
That must not have been clear then because tariffs went up and down all through the 1800s.
It was clear after 1820. America also enacted policy clearly recognizing it from 1846 to the war. Through that entire period tariffs were consistently low.
You don't!?
The tariff stats for 1816 or 1822, no. I don't. I could look them up fairly quickly if necessary, but thus far I have not found it in my interest to commit to memory the annual tariff schedule of the United States for every year of the 19th century. I do know those of years I commonly deal with (roughly 1857-65) though.
Yeah, it went up and down.
No. Not between 1846 and 1860. First it went down. Then it went down some more. That demonstrates consistency over an extended period.
Between 1790 and 1865+, it went up and down about with the same frequency the income tax goes up and down now.
You are violating basic rules of statistical presentation by way of padding the mean. Fluctuations in the tariff rate were much more frequent in some decades than others. If, for example, it went up and down almost yearly for a decade in the early 1800's yet went consistently down for 15 years straight from 1846-61, an average from 1800-1861 would not reflect the consistency of that last decade because your mean is padded. You must know this as the 1846 tariff has been brought to your attention repeatedly, yet you still pad your mean to suggest that fluctuations were evenly dispersed over that same period. That makes you a liar.