Posted on 03/09/2016 6:41:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Claude Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) — a French classical liberal theorist, political economist and member of the French National Assembly — wrote an influential essay titled “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen.”
He argued that 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.
Americans who support tariffs on foreign goods could benefit immensely from Bastiat’s admonition. 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%. The clear beneficiaries of the steel tariffs were steel industry executives and stockholders and the 1,700 or so steelworkers whose jobs were saved.
But there is no such thing as a free lunch or a something-for-nothing machine. Whenever there is a benefit of doing something, there is a guaranteed cost.
A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, predicted that saving those 1,700 jobs in the steel industry would cost American consumers $800,000 per job, in the form of higher prices. That’s just the monetary side of the picture.
According to a study commissioned by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
RE: No, that pretty much covers it.
No it doesn’t. Any little kid can say the same things.
Why the Republican Party and Conservationism is dying. Because of myopic idiots like you.
The more outlandish “estimates” in this article are unattributed, and the less outrageous come from an organisation with an agenda that does not match that of the reader.
Like the Nips and Chinese and Korean ever bought into your free trade BS which is only an Anglo/Euro delusion.
I hope that Trump wins and you get a mental readjustment. Trump and the Nips are smarter than OBSOLETE libertarian “free trade” arrogance
Just to make idiot libertarians like you happy....I believe in totally libertarian policies within our US national borders. But as far as foreigners and foreign nations go...... figue it out doooood!
Wait tariffs are the “anti income tax” . How do they contribute to socialism?
RE: At least the venerable Mr. Williams didn’t insult our intelligence and try to re-write history by telling us Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression.
Smoot-Hawley might not have CAUSED the great depression, but it did a lot of damage to the economy.
From 1929 to 1933 American exports declined from about $5.2 billion to $1.7 billion, and the impact was concentrated on agricultural products such as wheat, cotton and tobacco. As a result, many American farmers defaulted on their loans, which in turn particularly affected small rural banks.
RE: Wait tariffs are the “anti income tax” . How do they contribute to socialism?
Who said tariffs contribute to socialism?
Meanwhile the country dies.
The operation was a success whether to patient dies or not is irrelevant.
When Trump wins people like you and me and other anti “free traitors” will be vindicated after years in the wilderness....lets hope!!!
I'll let you fill in the blank.
RE: The more outlandish “estimates” in this article are unattributed, and the less outrageous come from an organisation with an agenda that does not match that of the reader.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America’s WTO tariff-rate commitments.
The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.
After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.
In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.
See here:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/nov/11wto.htm
and here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/usa.wto1
We could have a repeat of that in a few years.
If your going to spew nonsense, don’t expect me to waste my time spelling it out for you.
Tariffs were set up by our founders to finance our government.
If we had stayed on that path, we wouldn’t have the government bloat we have today.
I don’t consider the government taking ten thousand dollars or more of my income by outright theft, to be preferable to paing a dollar more for a shirt.
Trump will hopefully usher in a new era of sane pro American economic policy. It places one sided manipulated and disastrous “Free Trade” into the dustbin of history.
RE: $5.2 billion out of a total economy of $_____ Billion GNP?
Therefore, the damage to the American farmers and agriculture can be ignored?
RE: Trump will hopefully usher in a new era of sane pro American economic policy.
Just be sure that the policies INTENDED to help America don’t end up harming America ( and the world for that matter ).
Tariffs are bad.
The threat of a tariff is necessary to ensure fair trade practices.
Walter was missing a variable in his equation. Higher prices will bring more domestic competitors to the steel industry.
Only stupid Anglo-nations elevate libertarian type free trade. You think the Chinese elites preach this garbage within China? hahhhahahhah And the Han Chinese are high IQ same as the Japanese and Koreans
I’d say there’s nothing wrong with free trade but if we get foreign things and they get an IOU, that’s not a good kind of trade. We should be doing jobs, making things, and shipping that to the foreign traders. We have unemployed workers and just export IOUs.
RE: $5.2 billion out of a total economy of $_____ Billion GNP?
The GDP of the USA in 1929 was about $104 Billion.
See here: http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html
That’s 5% of the economy.
Our GDP today is about 17 Trillion. 5% of 17 Trillion is _____________
“I don’t consider the government taking ten thousand dollars or more of my income by outright theft, to be preferable to paing a dollar more for a shirt.”
Given the present cost differential between foreign-made and domestic-made shirts, I think a tariff that had any impact would cost you much more than $1.00 per shirt. You would be hard-pressed to find a US-made all-cotton dress or sport shirt for less than $100.
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.