[staytrue]

Our trade deficit is 500 billion. It means we trade 500 billion of capital (stocks, bonds, real estate) for 500 billion of imported goods and services.

The only solution is to work the same and spend 500 billion less or produce more, 500 billion more, but get to spend the same.

The american people like spending more than they produce to the tune of 1,500 dollars per person or about 3,000 dollars per worker.

No one wants to hear this, but tariffs will not change the fact that we need to produce more or consume less.

Getting rid of govt. spending which is mostly useless, tort reform, getting rid of govt. regulation will help.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less.

[harpseal]

No one wants to hear this, but tariffs will not change the fact that we need to produce more or consume less.

Since tariffs are a consumption tax they do at least affect one side of the equation. Just ask most of those who scream how poor people won't be able to afford the necessities of life if we impose any tariffs on Chinese goods.

Getting rid of govt. spending which is mostly useless, tort reform, getting rid of govt. regulation will help.

Thank you for supporting those parts of my compromise plan but unless and until we build enough suppport from thsioe who agree that some portions of the plan provide impetus in a posirtive direction even though they might not actively support it all can we get enough pressure on DC to get them actively moving in a positive direction which is at least partly away from the goals expressed at the Uraguay Round.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less

Please see my comments regarding at least the consumption side. Now both Adam Smith and David Riccardo recognized that tariffs could also "foster industry." That is they create a better overall climate for investing in a nation. I believe and can cite some supporting evidence that investment improves productivity and creates jobs. So again IMHO the tariff also affects the produce more side of the equation by fostering investment in teh USA and likewise I can provide at least one tariff regression analyissi that supports this premise. If you can find a case where a tariff harmed this nation on a net basis benefits - costs less than 0 I would love to see it as i have lonng been looking for such a case to demonstrate that tariffs are not universally beneficial to this nation. Now clearly since groups like the Cato espouse regression analysis as the tool of choice for quantitative analysis of costs and benefits. such evidence should include regression analysis of the Costs and benfots of both sides of the issue to arrive at the net. Cato only does the costs of tariffs.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less. ,P>See above for why I can not accept this as fact and for logic as to why no one should. if you can provide qantitative analyiss of why we should accept this or even a logical agrument I will be happy to consider that.