Replies

To see who bears those costs requires more economic data and mathematical analysis of that data.

It seems to me more a case of simple mathematics. The claim has been made that the south paid 87% of the tariff revenue. That would seem to me that they would have had to consume either 87% of the actual imports or 87% of the output of the industries that the tariffs protected. And both those figures are ridiculous. Southern demand for imports were too low to justify having the goods shipped to them. That leaves domestically produced goods. What Northern industry did the south consume the overwhelming percentage of, other than slaves? Iron, textile, some other form of manufactured goods? What? The claim that the south paid most of the tariffs is impossible to support. If anything it is far more likely that the south actually paid a smaller percentage of tariff revenue.

What Northern industry did the south consume the overwhelming percentage of, other than slaves? Iron, textile, some other form of manufactured goods? What? The claim that the south paid most of the tariffs is impossible to support. If anything it is far more likely that the south actually paid a smaller percentage of tariff revenue.

The south consuming 87% of -any- industry seems inconsistent with the fact that during the war the federal goernment could call on factories that could produce 5,000 rifles a --day-- while factories in the so-called CSA could only produce 100 rifles a day.

Of course the great CSA technological marvel, the Hunley didn't even have an engine.

Walt

It seems to me more a case of simple mathematics.

If those mathematics are properly calculated as a matter of economics, it can be fairly simple. But throwing numbers out there and making a guess in the wind about them meaning something as you do is not economics.

The claim has been made that the south paid 87% of the tariff revenue. That would seem to me that they would have had to consume either 87% of the actual imports or 87% of the output of the industries that the tariffs protected.

And that is your error. Economic costs are not measured in strict simplistic incurred purchases at the point of revenue collection. Tariffs shift the whole price scheme around, which is where the costs of a tariff are incurred.

And both those figures are ridiculous.

If that is what you believe, make your case by way of economic trade analysis. Post the numbers and graph it out. Then calculate the area of the cost segment and assign it. You have not done so yet. Simply throwing out incomplete statistics you do not understand and calling them economic analysis does not make it so.