Replies

First I asked for a net study using the Same methodology on the cost and benefit side for tariffs. You have yet to provide this. The Steel Consumers study of the costs has a large number of flaws among them that it is not and does not claim to be a net effect study it is a study of the costs side. Now others have posted the steel industry study showing benefits exceeding the costs. A one sided screed is not evidence merely proof of intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to decieve. If this were teh first time you had this explained to you you could be forgiven but as it is YOUR REFERENCE TO THIS STUDY IN THIS CONTEXT SHOWS YOU TO BE A LIAR WHO IS INTENTIONALLY LYING TO DECIEVE PEOPLE TO FUTHER YOUR AGENDA

When you are ready to discuss tariffs and their economic effects honestly I will be glad to. These randge from the early steel tariffs of the 18th and 19th Century to the Smoot Hawley tariff and the current steel tariff. I actually would like to see a net study showing any one tariff was harmful to the USA. It would at least provide evidence that tariffs were not universally beneficial.

It's pretty clear that Dawggie hasn't a clue.

The steel tariff, as I understand it, was a typically-mismanaged Gummint deal, affecting certain grades/qualities of steel, not others, and almost guaranteed to produce dislocations and confusion.

It was certainly a sop to USW interests.

The "cohesive, strategically-based, and consistent" tariff policy has yet to be written.

Serious proposals are getting floated, though. One involves a flexible tariff arrangement using a matrix, with the "x" factor being the economic health of the USA, the "y" factor being the country in question (PRC, Phillipines, Spain, etc.) and their general conformance to labor standards, ecological concerns, etc., etc.

You'll hear more about this over the next 60 days as the proposal takes shape. It's being worked over right now by a large alliance of small-manufacturing trade associations (PMA, NTMA.)

The MOST IMPORTANT component is actually having a set of standards which are consistent and strategically-driven--something the USA has really never had to this point.