I'm not saying we don't compete. I'm saying we worry about our own market first. 23% Unemployment is unacceptable. We need to protect our market first to the extent that our own people are back to work and key industries are restored. And then we worry about competition.
It makes no sense to compete with china's $0.17/hour wages when we have the largest consumer market. And they tax their consumer market out of existence.
WHO
IS
WE?
AND
WHO
MAKES
THE
DECISIONS
FOR
ALL
OF
WE?????????????????????????????
WHO
DETERMIMES
WHEN
OUR
INDUSTRY
IS
RESTORED?
WHO
DETERMINES
WHICH
INDUSTRIES
GET
RESTORED?
WILL
YOU
RESTORE
THE
BUGGY
WHIP
INDUSTRY?
THE
EDSEL?
THE
8
TRAC?
Danny these hypocrites are only against tariffs if we do it, communists and other turd worlders can tariff us and they say nothing and do not want to fight back because selling out your country is very profitable.
HOW
DO
WE
DO
THIS?
DO
WE
START
BY
PREVENTING
IPHONE
FROM
COMING
IN
THE
COUNTRY?
“One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer’s. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the “interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers” and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number—for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs—jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.
Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.
The misleading terminology we use reflects these erroneous ideas. “Protection” really means exploiting the consumer. A “favorable balance of trade” really means exporting more than we import, sending abroad goods of greater total value than the goods we get from abroad. In your private household, you would surely prefer to pay less for more rather than the other way around, yet that would be termed an “unfavorable balance of payments” in foreign trade.
The argument in favor of tariffs that has the greatest emotional appeal to the public at large is the alleged need to protect the high standard of living of American workers from the “unfair” competition of workers in Japan or Korea or Hong Kong who are willing to work for a much lower wage. What is wrong with this argument? Don’t we want to protect the high standard of living of our people?
The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms “high” wage and “low” wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate? -Milton F
“As the leader of the West and as a country that has become great and rich because of economic freedom, America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade.” - RR