Posted on 10/07/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
The American consumers have hurt themselves by being awed by the "better deal" Trojan horse and consistently sending their hard-earned dollars overseas to the coffers of foreign-owned companies being subsidized by the American government. These companies then take the lion's share of the profits, pay taxes there to support their homeland, and come back and buy up more of the American pie, while greedy politicians and CEOs to massage our trade laws to their benefit.
Every American should read author Roger Simmermaker's hot new book: "How Americans Can Buy American" before our sovereignty is completely sold out and the living standard bar is lowered more. The first chapter can be read online, and the author can be contacted there.
Burdened with legacy costs, three times higher taxes and government-imposed regulations, domestic-owned companies have to compete with slave labor and are forced to look for the cheapest way to conduct business to please the consumer's demands for the cheapest, thus the job exodus.
In essence, the American consumers helped fuel the same vehicle that came back and ran over them. We will become a colony again by losing our manufacturing independence, only this time under Asian rule. Total capitalism will be the death of our middle class society. Do you think the wealthiest among us care? Only Wal-Mart workers and rich CEOs will be left.
The Internal Revenue Service was formed to make up for the deficit when the tariffs were dropped in 1913. That's why all four great men on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. Do you like April 15? Grandma was right when she told you, "Don't be penny wise and pound foolish!"
Barbara Glepko-Toncheff
Chagrin Falls, Ohio
Because whatever effects there may have been were extremely minor compared to the REAL causes of the Great Depression.
Imports formed only 6 percent of the GNP. With average tariffs ranging from 40 to 60 percent, this represents an effective tax of merely 2.4 to 3.6 percent. Yet the Great Depression resulted in a 31 percent drop in GNP and 25 percent unemployment. The idea that such a small tax could cause so much economic devastation is too far-fetched to be believed.
Even an effective tax of 2.4 to 3.6 percent is overstating the effects of the tariff. The tariff rates were already high to begin with. Sources vary, but it's generally estimated that Smoot-Hawley raised rates from 26 to 60 percent of their previous levels. In that case, we are talking about an effective tax increase of 1.4 percent at most.
Actually, the Smoot-Hawley tariff extended the list of imports that entered the country with no tariffs at all! The tariffs that WERE raised were tariffs on particular import sensitive goods, such as Canadian agriculture, that were already on the tariff list. But the amount of goods to which no tariffs were applied was INCREASED!
And Smoot-Hawley did NOT "entirely shut down trade". For the U.S., it fell from 6 to 2 percent of the GNP between 1930 and 1932. This is more attributable to the tremendous slowdown of the ENTIRE ECONOMY than anything precipitated by the minor role of tariffs. The disengenous "free traders" completely reverse the roles of cause and effect to promote their convoluted theories!
To not impose tariffs also inflicts costs on us. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
It's a bubble that's being overinflated by the Service Sector and increased National Debt. The horrific Trade Deficit we're experiencing in manufactured goods and commodities is actually SUBTRACTED from the calculation of GDP. It won't be long before the service sector alone won't be able to prop up GDP and the Debt and the bubble will burst.
No. As a matter of principle, I absolutely refuse to yield one inch to the Klintonian globalist bullshooters.
Oh really?
What is that supposed to mean? Am I to infer that you are completely on the "tariffs have no cost" bandwagon?
Which side of the fence? Commies are always fighting eachother. Dont blame us for the insanity that you have chosen. Maybe you should try a less simplistic, self serving analogy?
Becuase it is possible to demonstate that tariffs help our economu and I have posted one example of teh above. The issue that something is almost impossible to isolate is not new to me. I am quite familiar with it but it is possible to statistically control for using multiple regression analysis which is why I am so particular about using the same methodologies for both sides of the cost benefit equation.
I demand the same rigor of the adbvocates of the unfair trad eenvirornment that they have demanded of its opponents. In short I learned from such as LS, that factual rigor is very important in an honest discussion of tariffs. I would think if i advocated a position that was unsupported by facts I would be questioning that position. If even thr experts that articulate the theory and who are supposedly academics of the first order can not provide the evidence supporting their theoretical construct when at least one piece of evidence refuting that theoretical construct exists then I would question what I espoused. i note the theory of circular orbits of the planets was discarded by Johannes Kepler on the basis of one observation by Tycho Brahee. This was a great moment in physical science. Would that economists were as enlighted as physicists.
By the way I ahve read numerous economists who assert that Smoot Hawley was a great harm to our economy but when I look at the details the details contradict them. Some have argued Smoot Hawley kicked off a round of retaliatory tariffs. The details do not bear that assertion out. I will even grant that Smoot hawley did great harm to many Central and South American economies but I have yet to see that assertion proven or even well defended. Yes, I have read Friedman among others.
I demand the rigor I do because this is a serious issue too serious to be left to fuzzy thinking and platitudes based upon misrepresentation of facts. I am appalled by the one liners of many so called libertarians who mouth the Cato institute line on this without examining the facts. I do not claim to have every fact and I appreciate new ones. as I said with the USITC study I am examining I have only some preliminary impressions and I have to devote more time to the piece. If it works as an example of a traiff that seems on net to harmful to the USA I will flag you on it. At least I can make this statement. The USITC study of the effect of the 2001 steel tariffs on Steel Consumers shows that the overall net cost/benefit may be either positive or negative so a reasonable conclusion is this tariff on net can neither be declared helpful or harmful based on this study at this time.
I for one do not find the idea a tariff could be harmful irrational. I honestly believe there must be some that are harmful on net. I just would like the evidence in hand for when tariffs again become in fashion.
In short I believe in rational policies rationally arrived at with ideaologies set aside in favor of empirical evidence. I also enjoy a lively discussion with those who have knowledge I do not have and from whom I can learn. Of course intellectual honesty is paramount in such a discussion. When I allege something that I have not seen the evidence for I will state my lack of documentation when I allege something where the documentation has been repeatedly produced on other threads then I will tell a personr to do their own research. In short I enjoy reasonable discussion without rancor. With many advocates of the current trade envorornment that is impossible because of their militancy and unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion with evidence and referneces.
Instead they make assertions which are unsupported by facts. This is a typical tactic of liberals, unfair trade advocates and Marxiists.
Now you alleged a "double standard" I deny a double standard and specifically state that the double standard if employed by anyone is employed by those whop advocate the current trade regimine without providing any evidence. When one asks for evidence one is hard pressed to even get something line the study funded by the Steel Consumer's group and that is hardly evidence of anything except that one can create a document taht argues a point by dismissing every countervailing argument and engaging in rhetorical and marthematical hucksterism. The great significance of the diiffenece between the steel Consumer's study and the the USITC study is that the latter does not confirm the former. at least in the executive summary. That qualification of at least in the executive summary is important because the details of what is summarized are far more important than the summary and may not support the summary. I have not yet had chance to critically analyze teh details of teh this several hundred page document so when I am done I will let you know.
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.