Posted on 03/14/2018 9:27:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are a couple of important economic lessons that the American people should learn. I'm going to title one "the seen and unseen" and the other "narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs." These lessons are applicable to a wide range of government behavior, but let's look at just two examples.
Last week, President Donald Trump enacted high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Why in the world would the U.S. steel and aluminum industries press the president to levy heavy tariffs? The answer is simple. Reducing the amounts of steel and aluminum that hit our shores enables American producers to charge higher prices. Thus, U.S. steel and aluminum producers will earn higher profits, hire more workers and pay them higher wages. They are the visible beneficiaries of Trump's tariffs.
But when the government creates a benefit for one American, it is a virtual guarantee that it will come at the expense of another American -- an unseen victim. The victims of steel and aluminum tariffs are the companies that use steel and aluminum. Faced with higher input costs, they become less competitive on the world market. For example, companies such as John Deere may respond to higher steel prices by purchasing their parts in the international market rather than in the U.S. To become more competitive in the world market, some firms may move their production facilities to foreign countries that do not have tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. Studies by both the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition show that steel-using industries -- such as the U.S. auto industry, its suppliers and manufacturers of heavy construction equipment -- were harmed by tariffs on steel enacted by George W. Bush.
Politicians love having seen beneficiaries and unseen victims. The reason is quite simple. In the cases of the steel and aluminum industries, company executives will know whom to give political campaign contributions. Workers in those industries will know for whom to cast their votes. The people in the steel- and aluminum-using industries may not know whom to blame for declining profits, lack of competitiveness and job loss. There's no better scenario for politicians. It's heads politicians win and tails somebody else loses.
Then there's the phenomenon of narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. A good example can be found in the sugar industry. Sugar producers lobby Congress to place restrictions on the importation of foreign sugar through tariffs and quotas. Those import restrictions force Americans to pay up to three times the world price for sugar. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that Americans pay an extra $2 billion a year because of sugar tariffs and quotas. Plus, taxpayers will be forced to pay more than $2 billion over the next 10 years to buy and store excess sugar produced because of higher prices. Another way to look at the cost side is that tens of millions of American families are forced to pay a little bit more, maybe $20, for the sugar we use every year.
You might wonder how this consumer rip-off sustains itself. After all, the people in the sugar industry are only a tiny percentage of the U.S. population. Here's how it works. It pays for workers and owners in the sugar industry to come up with millions of dollars to lobby congressmen to impose tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar. It means higher profits and higher wages. Also, it's easy to organize the relatively small number of people in the sugar industry. The costs are borne by tens of millions of Americans forced to pay more for the sugar they use. Even if the people knew what the politicians are doing, it wouldn't be worth the cost of trying to unseat a legislator whose vote cost them $20 a year. Politicians know that they won't bear a cost from sugar consumers. But they would pay a political cost from the sugar industry if they didn't vote for tariffs. So they put it to consumers -- but what else is new?
What we have today is not free trade.
It’s the western financial sector getting into bed with communist regimes, and financing the rope that those regimes will use to strangle us.
In the mean time, the majority of the globalist free traders are growing old, and won’t be around when the communists take over.
And, these people just don’t give a shit about you, or your country. They got theirs, and they made sure that you could never touch that. That’s all that matters to them.
There’s no politics with these people. Manipulating politicians and governments is simply a means to an end for them to achieve their goals, even to the detriment of the host nation.
He’s a globalist.
Amen, Brother.
No, #3 does not negate #1, the USW will be well aware of the mills increased earnings, at will be at the table to take a bigger bite at contract time.
Most of those on the Free Traitor side are in positions that will never be effected by either the import of cheap labor or the outsourcing of good paying jobs to countries with lower wage scales. If you began to replace those folks, with lower wage earners in their field, there opinions would change quickly.
Yep - Stossel uses a false meme and Walter uses shortsightedness by not acknowledging Trump’s adaptability. The steel/aluminum tariffs are not the end game.
That’s a serious misunderstanding of current events
We are the second largest exporter of scrap metal in the world (EU is #1) why aren’t we using it here instead of importing new steel?
Being forced to share the wealth is not the same as voluntarily sharing it as Williams implied.
You mean like Mr. Trump's recent election where he beat 16 other Free Traitors™ in the primaries like rented mules?
No, your misunderstanding of what he is actually doing
Not sure he is implying that; he’s just stating what historically happens when the mills get the benefits of tariffs put on their competitors.
I would question that is what historically happens. All corporations will want to maximize profits and minimize expense. Salaries are an expense. Tariffs don't change that.
Not all corporations are unionized, it is historical, profit goes up, maybe marginal increase in total employment, union gets a bigger bite of the apple. Oh, and lead times increase.
That is why my old company told me to go call congress for universal health care.
True. When journalists make what they purport to be “qualified” conclusions about any other field except journalism- we read total BS.
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.