Posted on 12/04/2024 8:39:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I do not have an economics degree from Boston University, like AOC, and I’m not a professional economist by trade. I only play one. Nevertheless, here are five cases for Trump’s tariffs.
1. As we saw last week with his new tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, Trump’s plan is to use tariffs punitively, to alter behavior.
The president-elect said that he would impose across-the-board tariffs on Day 1 and that they would stay in place until Canada, Mexico and China halted the flow of drugs and migrants.
All three countries have wittingly produced fentanyl (China) or aided in the smuggling and distribution of the drug into the United States. Trump has committed to the American people that he is going to shut down the border and stop the flow of illegal invaders, and while he, Tom Homan, ICE, and the Border Patrol are going to do our part to affect this outcome, he needs Mexico and Canada to do their part as well. These tariffs don’t need to go into effect if China, Mexico, and Canada get on board.
2. For at least 30 years, as far as I can recall, our industrial base has been decimated by the offshoring of good paying, low- and medium-skilled, middle-class jobs to China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The auto industry, steel, textiles, appliances, electronics, and more have moved offshore. This may have enabled cheaper imports, but it also eliminated many of the middle-class incomes that Americans once relied upon to provide for their families.
We now have a two-tier economic system, where tech moguls, money managers, and athletes and entertainers make really good money, and much of the rest of society is relegated to low-wage service-sector jobs, that offer little to no advancement and barely provide for an individual, let alone a family.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
American companies pay for both the civil order we have (police/government) and expensive regulations that control quality of product and labor/environment laws. No tariffs encourages countries with low standards to have access to our markets without sharing the cost of maintaining that market. That cost instead is borne by the U.S. based businesses and U.S. taxpayers.
“If the costs (of tariffs) are passed on, then customers face a choice: continue buying the (now more expensive) import or switch to buying a domestic alternative (which will cost more than the import pre-tariff).”
Trump’s tariffs could cost the typical U.S. family an additional $2,600 a year due to importers and manufacturers passing the cost of tariffs to consumers, according to an August analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank focused on economic issues.
This will be a balancing act, for sure, but I believe that a couple factors work in Donald Trump’s favor. First, energy production will lower fuel and heating costs and should place downward pressure on consumer goods as delivery costs are lowered, and second...housing. Housing prices, whether mortgages or rents, have skyrocketed in recent years, in part due to mortgage interest rates, but more acutely by demand. Many metropolitan communities will see lessened demand pressure as Donald Trump purges the country of illegal aliens.
Across-the-board tariffs are blunt instrument.
I was in China when Clinton “negotiated” (hardly what happened) WTO entry with China in 1999-2000
China went through every item, analyzed it vs. their central plans, and gave up some things, and insisted on others to the benefit their local industry.
You want to export Orange Juice to China? Fine. We’ll steadily lower the duties. That’s a not a strategic commodity, and we’re not encouraging our farmers to grow oranges anyway.
You want to export Disney Movies? OK fine, we’ll crack down on copyright laws, but we’ll later demand editorial controls to the producers, or they’ll never find a Chinese theater to show them.
You want to export car parts to China? No. We’ll keep import duties higher for longer, and we’ll encourage American and EU companies to invest in China, because either way, we want that production and technology here.
And Clinton and the USA agreed to all of it, for short-term political/media gains. Sheer stupidity.
For what reason do we still honor the Universal Postal Union wrt China and subsidize their shipping inbound to USA?
Bookmark
1. If we realize the goal is punitive (i.e., protective), tariffs can be useful. However, part of that punishment will be shared by US consumer in the form of higher price. People should understand that.
2. This is the Protective tariff argument and has been used before in many industries, like the steel and auto. In the 60's, we put protective tariffs on steel because Japan was selling at much lower cost. The problem was we were using 1890's technology while Japan used the Marshall Plan to implement 1960's technology. The tariffs delayed modernization by decades causing the US to pay significantly more for all products that used steel.
3. This is a not consequence of tariffs and is a specious argument. Increased energy production and fewer illegal aliens are results of other policies, not tariffs.
4. Who are you to tell me I buy too much junk? That's a decision for me to make, not you.
5. More effective alternatives exist. How about 15 years of lower corporate tax rates for producers of military items? That would have a more immediate impact than tariff policies.
They’re ALL conditional. That’s the point. They are negotiating tools.
Nope. This is the fundamental problem with academics. They live in a world of theory not reality.
On paper this notion works, in the real world it does not. It is all carrot and no stick
As someone who has worked in Corporate America for 35 years now, this idea is pure make believe. Corporate America will simply do both. Got to the lowest cost supply source and take the tax breaks as well
The problem the US has faced is the political/business class has clung to this “free trade” theory while ignoring all the negative impacts this theory has brought in real life to the US people.
Read “The Dying Citizen” by Victor Davis Hanson.
The US Government should not exist just to guarantee fat profit margin and big stock options for Corporate America.
It should be looking out for US national interests
Continuing this path of reducing the population of the US to a country of haves, and have nots, is not an option for long term national survival.
Yep. Sadly, people vote their wallets. There are two advantages to tariffs. First, the bring jobs home and, second, they increase government revenue, reducing the debt.
But it means it’ll cost us in retail prices. However, it could strengthen the dollar, lowering import prices in general. But the fact is that if we are going to get out of this national debt collapse spiral, it’s gonna cost everyone. But people don’t want to pay so they avoid electing adults that will make the tough decisions.
So it will probably continue until a “hard” collapse. i.e. War, etc. That’s the most expensive solution. It’s the old phrase - pay me now, or pay me later. “Now” is cheaper - and voluntary.
Continuing this path of reducing the population of the US to a country of haves, and have nots, is not an option for long term national survival.
This is a huge non-sequitur. First, the income distribution is dynamic. Not that long ago, Bezos was a "have not" but over time, he and thousands of others move up the income distribution. Somebody slinging hamburgers today might well be the Bezos of tomorrow. Second, income inequality provides the incentive to move up the income ladder. Stupid ideas like a perfectly equal distribution of income causes people to NOT work. Such a system has never worked. Gov't-backed tariffs do enhance corporate profits by protecting domestic firms from foreign competition.
Unfortunately the real world doesn’t work the way the theory says it should. We have now done a 50 year live experiment of the theory.
The result? The US has paid all the economic costs, seeing a significant weakening of it middle class so that the !% can add hundreds of billions to their wealth.
That a American can buy a toaster for $20 instead of $25 is cold comfort for the 50% of the US trapped in an economy where they will never make more then $50,000 a year
Economics degree is on par with gym phys ed degree.
It signifies you were dumb enough to sign not for one year of loans, but 4 times! Talk about an idiot degree!
Put on some fake glasses and you’ll look smarter like the teacher in a van halen ‘hit for teacher’ video.
I saw only intelligence, like superman in in black glasses....only see clark kent.
And there are hundreds of millions of people under other economic systems who would trade with you in a heartbeat.
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.