Replies

I think your argument has a perfect contradiction. A government subsidy on an export is the exact opposite of a tariff on an imported product. It's the gov't altering the "market" rate of a product to make the US product more favorable. Read the following.

If you buying domestic steel at a price depressed by imports then you were getting an advantage from teh harm others inflicted on the US economy.
Compare this with, If theprice went up becuase of tariffs then you are merely complaining about the market.
In summary, if the price is less than what US steel producers would like to charge, it is considered "depressed" by subsidized imports. On the other hand, if we slap a tariff on imported goods (which drives the price above what the US producers currently can afford to charge) , you would call the new price the "market at work", not "inflated".

You can't have it both ways. Either you consider the gov't interference part of the economy consistently or you don't at all. Unfortunately, you have to consider it. It swallows up a huge part of our economy, and it is what makes us uncompetitive in many markets. If a foreign nation subsidized an export, it hurts that industry here, but reduces the cost of the product for the consumers here. If we put a tariff on an import, it helps that industry here, but hurts the consumers here.

Thanks for the fight, I've got to go home now and pretend like I did some real work today.

In summary, if the price is less than what US steel producers would like to charge, it is considered "depressed" by subsidized imports. On the other hand, if we slap a tariff on imported goods (which drives the price above what the US producers currently can afford to charge) , you would call the new price the "market at work", not "inflated".

Since the US made steel was not selling at below cost prior to the tariff of 30% and the foreign made steel did rise in price while the uS made steel stayed at roughly the same price based onb government figures I really question the factualness of wyour information here.

You can't have it both ways. Either you consider the gov't interference part of the economy consistently or you don't at all.

A tariff is not per se the government inter fereing in the domestic econbomy it is a rspobnse to foreign actions and part of the USA guranteeing a healthy envirornment for a free market>

Unfortunately, you have to consider it. It swallows up a huge part of our economy, and it is what makes us uncompetitive in many markets.I presume foreign tariffs on Americvan goods and services and currency controls have nothing to do with our being competitive in those markets. Typical Cato intsitute troll behavior here.

If a foreign nation subsidized an export, it hurts that industry here, but reduces the cost of the product for the consumers here.

Precisely and that reduced cost of product for those who happen to consume that product inflicts harm on the nation as a whole by reducing tax revenues increasing welfare costs and harming the overall environment to provide good returns on investment in the USA.

If we put a tariff on an import, it helps that industry here, but hurts the consumers here.

it also helps othe rindustries here by providing more people able to consume goods and services.

At this point I would like to go back to your original diatribe trying to explain how tariffs harmed teh appliance industry. Now with most appliances rolled steel is a very small part of the overall cost of the appliance. The big part of the appliance is the electrical systems which are not steel. Sunstituting plastic is something that is routinely done for cist, and weight savings with some durablility issues and would be done where possible even with no tariffs on steel. Aluminum or titanium would add so much to the cost of the appliance it would not be considered unless the special properties of those metals would otherwise apply.

I understand the nat'l defense angle, and I agree with you on that, but in a strictly economic sense, tariffs can and do hurt our economy, though I do prefer that form of taxation over the ones currently in place, which do far more harm. That remains to be proven because even if I conceded every argument on the appliances you mentioned it still remains to be measured the total benefits of the tariff versus the total costs. the regression analysis I have seen make teh tariff much more beneficial.

Thanks for the fight, I've got to go home now and pretend like I did some real work today. Now since I do my own business I can post on the internet when I please and I do not let it interfere with my business but if your were posting on time you were paid for then I would suggest you owe your employer a refund of your wages for the time spent so doing. I guess that a fair days work for a fair days wage is too much a priciple of capitalism for you subscribe to.

Regarding my #329 you considered this an accusation of being lazy against you. I did not consider it so. I shall openly and publicly apologize for any such inference drawn. Many on these treads have accused people unhappy with teh current economic structure of not meeting their employers needs and of being lazy. This is often a tactic of those who attack tariffs and as such when your own words offered such a tempting target I did take the shot.

I note in your private e-mail to me you expessed you anger and offense at what you thought I had implied about you personally.

I note that often in this forum apersons words are use dagainst them that is the way it goes here.

In any case I apologize for the personal offense inflicted as there was no such personal offense meant. Will I say I would not do it again? Of course not picking up on such comments is half the fun of posting.