Posted on 01/05/2016 5:19:37 AM PST by thackney
As far as I can tell all the founding fathers were protectionists. Try to find one that wasn't. The main reason for the war was the unfair trade practices of the British empire.
The very first law signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789.
I would replace the income tax, which I feel is evil, with consumption taxes(sales) and tariffs. I've yet to find but a few Free Traitors™ that would agree with me.
Apparently not. At least not at price levels that will adequately support continued exploration/production.
What most don’t know is that shale wells are fairly short lived, which will require someone to re-frac or drill a new one to replace the soon dry ones. Prices are now too low to support new or expensively re-worked wells.
It’s not complicated. High prices lower consumer demand and cause entry into market by producers so hence the phrase “balancing supply and demand”. The market will overshoot in each direction but eventually finds equilibrium. We have just experienced the extremes of both direction.
Now supplies are high and prices are low and demand is low so investment is ceasing. There is not enough to demand to support the current historically low prices. So supply needs to be reduced which is bad because much of this capacity if closed will never reopen. This will ultimately lead to higher prices than if demand is increased even if by exports.
You might be in for some less than pleasant surprises with “Go, Trump go!”
Amen and amen.
Thanks!
It’s not complicated.
.................................
My part about the dictators and I left out possibly leading to WWIII if it isn’t already started - that is the complicated part:
...but the mix of dictators and Russia and Shia vs Sunni is a little too dangerous to ignore. In school we had multivariate equations to solve with the right combinations of constraints...this one is a toughie.
I will ask again. Give me the example of a FF taxing exports.
I said Civil War as in US Civil War. Though I do beleive the US CW was another English Civil War. It was fought over the very tariffs you mention. The US tax system was dependent on tariffs most of which were collected in southern ports.
The Feds were strangling the south with tariffs and could not afford to lose the revenue.
So you would put a tariff, high tariffs, on everything? Including capital investment and oil? What about basic minerals and resources will you punish them as well? Of course you will support all of the government power needed to control a free people and restrict their choices?
Tariffs and sales taxes are much better than income taxes. Seems the Free Traitor™ position is more “progressive” than that.
It still isn’t tough. Anytime there are excessive returns (profits) in a market it attracts government confiscation. Once that confiscation starts that government quickly becomes dependent on the revenue and will work to keep it high. The oil tyrants were enabled by US policies that drove up world wide oil prices that caused the excess profits that fueled Middle East violence over control of those profits.
Now profit in oil is being drive to a level that yields normal profits and the ME is in chaos because the oil tyrants no longer have the funds to suppress their own populations.
So US exports may lead to higher prices eventually. But that will stabalize investment and production which will keep a lid on excess profits. That will in turn defang the oil tyrants.
Which FF wished to tax exports? Waiting for that answer.
A flat rate consumption tax is the way to go. And it would apply to imports. Replace income taxes and tariffs and user fees. But we would need some extremely strong constitutional la gauge to keep it from becoming punitive.
This is a case of an export embargo, not an export tariff.
Example of an embargo from early US history:
The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general Embargo that made any and all exports from the United States illegal. It was sponsored by President Thomas Jefferson and enacted by Congress. The goal was to force Britain and France to respect American rights during the Napoleonic Wars. They were engaged in a major war; the U.S. wanted to remain neutral and trade with both sides, but neither side wanted the other to have the American supplies. The American goal was to use economic coercion to avoid war and to punish Britain
And how did that work out?
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Embargo-Act
The act was a hardship on U.S. farmers as well as on New England and New York mercantile and maritime interests, especially after being buttressed by harsh enforcement measures adopted in 1808.
Its effects in Europe were not what Jefferson had hoped. French and British dealers in U.S. cotton, for example, were able to raise prices at will while the stock already on hand lasted; the embargo would have had to endure until these inventories were exhausted.
Napoleon is said to have justified seizure of U.S. merchant ships on the ground that he was assisting Jefferson in enforcing the act. The Federalist leader Timothy Pickering even alleged that Napoleon himself had inspired the embargo.
Confronted by bitter and articulate opposition, Jefferson on March 1, 1809 (two days before the end of his second term), signed the Non-Intercourse Act, permitting U.S. trade with countries other than France and Great Britain. U.S. trade restrictions were rolled back entirely by Macon’s Bill No. 2 (1810), which authorized the president, upon normalization of commercial relations with either England or France, to reinstate nonintercourse against the other.
I guess it depends on what you embargo. In this case the oil/gas companies seemed to be doing ok just servicing/supplying the domestic market. Of course that has changed, the jury is still out but it will mean higher domestic prices in the future.
In this case the oil/gas companies seemed to be doing ok just servicing/supplying the domestic market.
- - - - - -
40 bankruptcies last year.
Exporting our expensive light sweet while importing cheaper heavy sour our refineries are already optimized to use helps keep prices lower in the US.
There was a bust in the early eighties, there was another 20 years later, there is one now. Oil boom/bust is the nature of the beast.
Great story but it is still not an example of taxing an export.
I’m still waiting for that FF who wanted to tax exports.
An embargo on all exports in the support of free trade is not a good example to support banning or taxing the export of one item, in this case gas, in order to make it cheaper for oneself.
Congress lifted an embargo not an export tariff. So your question is not relevant, but we can discuss export duties.
And while other nations help manage changing domestic demands with the ability to export surplus as they happen, you want to use big government to hamstring private industry and prevent them from having that that ability.
Apply the same ban to wheat.
If you start the ban after planting, at harvest time the prices will be very low if they cannot export excess wheat.
So what do you think happens next year? How much wheat are they going to plant?
What do you think would be the long term affect on the price of wheat with that ban?
Do you think farmers would be sure to only plant less wheat than the expected demand to equal? Would we end up importing wheat do to this ban?
I should have wrote:
manage changing domestic demands AND supplies...
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.