Posted on 03/09/2016 3:43:27 AM PST by expat_panama
...when making laws or economic decisions, it is imperative that we examine not only what is seen but also what is unseen. In other words, examine the whole picture...
...A concrete example was the Bush administration’s 8% to 30% tariffs in 2002 on several types of imported steel. They were levied in an effort to protect jobs in the ailing U.S. steel industry.
Those tariffs caused the domestic price for some steel products, such as hot-rolled steel, to rise by as much as 40%....
...there is no such thing as a free lunch...
...steel-users — such as the U.S. auto industry, its suppliers, heavy construction equipment manufacturers and others — were harmed by higher steel prices.
It is estimated that the steel tariffs caused at least 4,500 job losses in no fewer than 16 states, with more than 19,000 jobs lost in California, 16,000 in Texas and about 10,000 each in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.
In other words, industries that use steel were forced to pay higher prices...
...back in 2002, the typical hourly wage of a steelworker ranged between $15 and $20, in addition to fringe benefits — so we might be talking about an annual wage package averaging $50,000 to $55,000 — how much sense did it make for American consumers to have to pay $800,000 in higher prices, not to mention lost employment in steel-using industries, to save each job?
It would have been cheaper to tax ourselves and give each of those 1,700 steelworkers a $100,000 annual check...
...When Congress creates a special privilege for some Americans, it must of necessity come at the expense of other Americans...
...Congress ought to get out of the miracle business and leave miracle-making up to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
“Baloney. That’s just called economic reality. “
No it isn’t it is ideology without economic science backing it up...you are making a mistake by using one side of the computation and not looking at the other.
We have literally lost millions of jobs, mostly good jobs and thousands of companies...you must add that into your computation to get a clear, accurate picture. There has been a huge cost by doing this so called “free trade” which isn’t free it is just us giving away our jobs and employers to other nations. It truly is shortsighted.
China’s currency devaluation has the same effect of tariffs on foreign goods coming into the country while the goods leaving the country are artificially cheaper for export. We don’t want to put tariffs on Chinese goods, China doesn’t want tariffs, and, we may not need to use tariffs to improve American trading status with China. The credible threat of tariffs may be enough. I think there is a fallacy in assuming that we have one of two options, tariffs or no tariffs. There may be a third option the threat of tariffs.
“And here we have the stock Trump Chump reply. Donald Trump will do it because he’s Donald Trump. Nobody knows how to do it but him. He will succeed because he says so.”
I get into detail with folks whom have at least a basic understanding of economics and business. I just don’t think you will understand. Sorry it is blunt. I should probably worded it differently.
“Aw heck why now billions —no, WE’VE LOST TRILLIONS OF JOBS!!!”
Hmmm, we have lost millions of jobs and thousands of businesses over the years...
I’d like to discuss how “horrible” the USA was from 1789 to 1913 when FedGov’s main source of income was tariffs. Imagine no income taxes! You’d keep ALL of your earnings, must have been really “bad”. What a f’ed up country why we went from an agrarian country to industrial power house. Must have been luck I guess.
I'm not Walter, but reining in or abolishing the EPA would be a real good start. It wouldn't be everything needed, but it would be a solid beginning.
“And his leverage is to add tariffs on imported goods raising the cost to all U.S. consumers as Williams points out. How will that cause foreign countries to renegotiate instead of retaliate?”
Trump was specifically talking about China where we export our fertilizer keeping the bovine population employed and the products primarily of our multinationals and our wealth with a burgeoning trade deficit while they export to us manufactured goods, pirate our technology and manipulate their currency to our disadvantage. US News estimates 3.2 million US jobs lost to China since 2001.Are you suggesting they will be retaliating by sending the jobs and our wealth back to us?
No, you worded it in true Chump Trump fashion. Everyone is an idiot except you. Trump will win. Trump will accomplish all he says he would. All hail Trump. Any questions are not welcome.
I'll give a full picture that ought to put things into perspective for everyone ...
If the U.S. imposed tariffs on imports tomorrow, most of the world would simply laugh at us and walk away. Most major manufacturers are very Asia-oriented because that's where the biggest markets are. There are around 300-310 million people in the U.S. today. I hate to break this to you, but in a world of 7-8 billion people we really just don't matter as much as we used to.
At least the venerable Mr. Williams didn’t try to re-write history and tell us Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression.
I think it is twisted to consider the exchange of my time or skills for money to be “income”. There was an exchange. Nothing extra involved.
Those were aimed at higher quality imports from Europe. Stupid and shows you need to pick your battles carefully. The best way to impose tariffs is to pick things like Chinese drywall with arsenic it.
Wpin...the opposite is true...
Wpin's got a point. Thing is that when a country is wealthy it's for a reason, namely that we're simply good at creating wealth. The consequence then is that after creating all this wealth we want to be able to sell it and buy other stuff and that leads to the fact that we're the ones that do better when trade taxes are cut.
I can think of a lot of reasons American home prices went up in the early 2000s and the price of lumber isn't very high on the list.
Care to quantify your premise?
Why should those jobs be saved? I'd really like to know the logic behind your question. The economy is not static. 30 years ago no one had a job in the cell phone industry, but now the cell phone industry employs approximately 700,000. Should those jobs NOT have been created?
100 years ago United Leather (made horse harnesses) was one of the largest companies in the USA - now gone without a trace. Should those jobs have been saved and should we still have to buy horse harnesses to support those jobs. Please think a bit before you post about saving jobs.
That's a very important point that is totally lost on protectionists. When I go to Asia I am amazed at the degree to which their economies are focused regionally. Their interactions with each other - politically and economically - are paramount. If the US ceased to exist tomorrow, their standard of living would no longer change much - and that is a big difference from 20 years ago.
We still have the world's biggest entertainment industry though. Maybe we can hurt them by no longer allowing the export of Beyonce CD's? :)
When I was in the service I swore to defend the Constitution and my fellow Americans with my life.
I would surely bare the "burden" of 2% a year wage inflation if my fellow Americans had jobs and were working towards prosperity.
Plus Asian made products are mostly cheap crap of poor quality.
your presumption is that a job is something that can be saved
If the job does not produce a profit, then it is a liability and if it actually costs, a detriment. The presumption seems to be that a job once established is an entitlement for the worker. it is not. There is no job really, there is an opportunity to sell labor for money.
if the labor is not required, no transaction need occur
One factory closes and 2 thousands of Americans loose their jobs is a tragedy. 55,000 factories close and 12 million lose their jobs is a statistic.
1. For most of the period between 1789 and 1913, slavery was legal in the U.S.
2. The U.S. also had an open-borders policy back then, and relied heavily on imported workers to mine coal and iron in the east, build railroads out west, etc.
3. It's no coincidence that the period you have defined ended at the same time New Mexico and Arizona became the last two states in the contiguous United States. Once there was no longer a frontier, this country changed dramatically basically as a matter of course -- not because of any arbitrary political decisions.
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.