Posted on 07/24/2002 7:44:25 AM PDT by RCW2001
Amazing that you would cite Heinz, whose Harvard degree is no better than Bush's, but disregard established economists who have actually done research in the field. And NO, you can't get what you "need to know" from a "google" search. That is purely moronic.
And no, it doesn't matter WHEN the final vote was, the Hawley Smoot deal was "done" the day before the crash. Obviously you have memory loss, or you would know that the CLINTON impeachment was "done" the day it was voted out of the judiciary, because you don't vote those things OUT unless they are going to pass. Likewise, the impeachment was DEAD the minute the Senate adopted its "rules." But guess what? The final "vote" wasn't for weeks.
But hey, live in your dream world. There aren't a handful of economists alive today who don't think that HS was a MAJOR contributor to the Great Depression, but even without it, your stupid argument is childish: every piece of evidence we have shows that FDR's abominable New Deal policies EXTENDED and DEEPENED the Depression. There is plenty of research on Glass Steagall (terrible); Minimum Wage Laws (drove millions out of work, right in the pit of the depression); FDR's hideous tax laws that ensured there would be no recovery; his pathetic spending programs, building opera houses when Americans couldn't even afford to go to movies.
The Dems and FDR in particular engaged in a war against the middle class and the poor, and framed it in rhetoric of hatred of the rich. But Hawley Smoot and the Fed started it all, so I can't blame him for that. (Notice, by the way, the EUROPEANS' response to HS was to enact barriers, so no more overseas trade.)
Complete utter nonsense that ingores one of the most fundamental principles of market economics: price is determined by supply and demand in the marketplace. More often than not, a minor increase in the cost of one of many raw materials utilized is merely absorbed by the producer. It certainly isn't amplified to reverberate throughout the economy, that's absurd.
Amazing that you would cite Heinz, whose Harvard degree is no better than Bush's,
Actually, Heinz received his Harvad MBA in 1963, prior to the ascendency of liberalism in our nation's universities during the Vietnam War era of the late '60s and early '70s. Dubya received his Harvard MBA in 1975, when the corrupting liberal influence in academia was already established. Heinz's Harvad MBA IS more credible than Dubya's.
About time someone thought of that.
Imagine what would happen if building inspectors were also in the office funiture business.
No, Wanniski is wrong on a lot, but he is dead on with the Hawley Smoot tariff, and each new piece of research we get drives another nail in that coffin.
Like I said, you ignore that price is determined by supply and demand in the market.
Put a CEO in jail, tighten SEC regulations, raise the penalty for securities fraud and, while we're at it, can't we do something about those exorbitant executive compensation packages?
If this downturn develops into something resembling the Great Depression, it will be due to capital fleeing the country in fear for its life.
And the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who know but choose to play the populist game in a misguided appeal for votes.
I'm referring to Republicans, since Democrats as a species plain don't understand business or economics or finance except as it relates to creative accounting methods such as used in making the Social Security Trust Fund "solvent" and cooking the books for companies they like.
And speaking of book-cooking, Paul Craig Roberts is about the only columnist who has not joined the lynch mob. He instead suggests that it's the change in SEC reporting rules -- as opposed to accounting principles, which once were the standard -- that's lead to the current troubles.
See his Rules no substitute for character to balance the current article with.
Show me one example of tariffs lowering other forms of taxation.
Impose tariffs and taxes would probably have to rise, as they did in the '30s. Balanced budget and all that.
Besides, somebody has to pay for that high-speed railroad you are so enamored with. You know it's not going to be the passengers.
I'm not a neo-confederate, but there is no question that the North was able to vote higher tariffs on items purchased by the South in order to save northern jobs. That is wrong. We should all pay the same LOW tax.
But MOST destructively, it gets government in the job of picking winners and losers, and it ALWAYS is inefficient at this. Look at Japan in the 1980s: in every single industry where Japan took the lead from us, it created more competitors, not fewer. In every major industry where MITI used tariffs to keep out competition, the Japanese still trail us. Japan's farmers are terrible, despite tariff barriers. Even with tariffs, her auto industry doesn't have the world market share ours does, and Japan tried to keep OUT one of the biggest competitors in the world, Honda. No this is NOT an argument for tariffs. They are bad policy.
Listen Mr. Clueless, ALL taxes imposed by the federal government are paid by Americans. And of the wide variety of taxation methods available, the Founding Fathers considered tariffs to be the least intrusive. That's because tariffs only applied to those who wished to remain economicly dependent on foreign goods. The vast majority of Americans were thus free to enjoy the blessings of liberty, independence and the fruits of their own labor and ingenuity in a totally TAX FREE environment: NO federal INCOME TAX, NO federal DEATH TAX, NO federal SALES TAX... etc. etc. etc. In fact, the nation's first attempt to legitimately impose an Excise Tax was met with open rebellion by freedom loving patriots (The Whiskey Rebellion).
In comparison to tariffs, ALL other methods of taxation are more oppressive of Americans' freedom and independence to enjoy the blessings of their own resourcefulness, ingenuity, hard work, creativity, industriousness and bountiful resources.
but there is no question that the North was able to vote higher tariffs on items purchased by the South in order to save northern jobs. That is wrong. We should all pay the same LOW tax.
Agreed. From the outset, wheedling special interests sought to distort the tax code for their own advantage. The resultant "targeted tariffs" were ideed "unfair". The same distortive forces exist today in excise "sin taxes" (alcohol, tobacco) and the convoluted "loopholes" or "incentives" of the incomprehensible Income Tax code.
Frankly, however, you must be unaware of the merits of a true "Revenue Tariff". Unlike "targeted tariffs", which only apply to certain items at different rates (determined by corruptive special interests in Congress), a "revenue tariff" is a uniform flat rate applied to ALL imported goods (regarless of the corrupt influence of special interests).
Over the last 140 years, our great nation has become much more economicly homogeneous. We no longer have the stark contrast between an "industrial North" and "agricultural South". A true revenue tariff would be spread much more equitably throughout our nation. And the revenues derived would permit the lowering of the more onerous forums of taxation: excise and income taxes. Americans would become more free to enjoy the fruits of their own endeavors and self-sufficiency.
What you don't "get" is that ALL forms of taxation have economic implications.
Tariffs are the least intrusive.
And a true revenue tariff (as explained previously) would enable the lowering of more opressive forms of taxation.
Equally important, tariffs are hugely political---as I mentioned before---because they reward SOME businesses and punish some consumers, which means that the states with the clout will always dominate those with fewer votes.
Your touting of Hamilton's original tariff is pretty weak. Hamilton from the get-go did not want a "revenue" tariff but a TARGETED tariff for "protection." However, the more evidence we have about that, the more we find that these industries would have survived without the protection. But it appears that is not what you are arguing.
However, as to the notion that "revenue" tariffs served the nation well, there are two things to keep in mind. First, LAND SALES, not tariffs, were the major source of revenues for the young country. Second, the size of government was so small that the combination of land sales and tariffs generated needed revenue. However, the first time the country got in any kind of war, the tariff revenues dried up, because Britain was no longer trading with us, and more important, we found that tariff revenues NEVER came close to supplying the money needed in emergencies.
Correction: on foreign producers/competitors who are not subject to the same set of laws, regulations and taxes imposed on our domestic producers/competitors.
I see no reason to extend priveleged access to the "free market" defined by the sovereign jurisdictional boundaries of our Constitution to entities not bound by that Constitution. So long as the federal government imposes restrictions through taxation/regulation on America's ability to fully utilize and enjoy its own resources, tariffs remain the least intrusive form of generating federal revenue.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Land sales merely represent the divestiture of assets.
They are not a sustainable source of revenue over the long term.
Sooner or later, you run out of assets (land) to sell.
Second, the size of government was so small that the combination of land sales and tariffs generated needed revenue. However, the first time the country got in any kind of war, the tariff revenues dried up, because Britain was no longer trading with us, and more important, we found that tariff revenues NEVER came close to supplying the money needed in emergencies.
Well, that "problem" certainly doesn't exist anymore.
We now have a bloated government that needs to be reduced in scope.
And we participate in a "global" economy, dependent on imports that virtually guarantee that tariff revenues will never "dry-up".
Care must be taken that a revenue tariff is not set so high that revenues begin to decline with imports. But at lower tariff rates, revenues DO increase with an increase in rate. It is a nonlinear function, with an optimal peak where revenues are maximized. This is where a revenue tariff should be established, allowing for reduction of other, more onerous forms of domestic taxation.
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.