Equal tariffs: an essential part of the economic fix

[Wonky Pundit]

Want to know one of the top reasons that so many jobs have gone overseas? In the US, tariffs on manufactured goods (where they exist at all) average anywhere from 2-5%. In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?

Genuine free trade, by definition, and its resulting benefits can’t exist unless both trading partners are playing by the same rules. Because "trade" is a two way street, "free trade" can exist only with equal tariffs – whether the rate is 0% or 50%. Without the balance, a much lower American import tariff just contributes to the erosion of our borders (and sovereignty) and an open door for the world to plunder our economy. The result would be, and has been, an exploding trade deficit that, if left unchecked, will eventually, maybe rapidly, destroy what’s left of the economy.

When other countries have much higher import tariffs than we do, here’s what happens:
First, their industrial base gains advantages from its protectionist tariffs if we don't match theirs. These manufacturers enjoy reduced or zero competition from their US counterparts. They can take the resulting increased profits and use them for R&D, better manufacturing equipment, and so on. Then, their products become even better and cheaper, making it difficult if not impossible for American manufacturers to compete in our own market as well as in the global market. All Americans suffer from this.

Second, lower import tariffs in the US don’t encourage the reduction or elimination of tariffs by other nations. They simply have no incentive. The purest model of free trade will only be achieved through the imposition of matching tariffs. The unilateral imbalance of US tariffs works against the pursuit of global free trade.

Free market absolutists will counter these arguments by claiming that any restrictions on trade impoverish those who are restricted. What they don’t realize is that this rule only applies to the consumer from the country with the high tariff and not to the manufacturer from the country with the lower tariff. You can’t ignore either one.

 

[expat_panama]

...In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?...

--and studies prove that 93% of statistics posted on political forums are made up.

OK, I know we could all come up with links to web-site rants by failed complaining union workers, but first let's follow the logic that says wanting America to be more like China is patriotic. Like, after we have high import taxes like the Chinese then maybe we can send half our population off to scratch food from the ground just like them.

Some say our economic recovery with 9.1% unemployment is the worst recovery ever and others say it's because import taxes are too low. The fact is that the 1933-1937 'recovery' had 25% unemployment and the difference was back then we collected duties on half of imports compared to our current 4% (here's one link from a big bunch of links for the tariffs, and here's where you get employment stats).

Some folks love high taxes and I don't, it's got nothing to do with patriotism because everyone serves America in different ways. Hey, some people volunteer enlist for the military and some people volunteer donate extra money to the federal government. If you think America needs more import taxes then you donate the same percentage of your income that I volunteered for my time in the service.

 

[pinqy]

Differing tariffs are irrelevant. The only question to be asked is whether or not you are better off making the trade. Trades don't have to be equal, all that matters is whether or not you benefit from it.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

...In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?...

--and studies prove that 93% of statistics posted on political forums are made up.

Hey, if you want links, just ask.

OK, I know we could all come up with links to web-site rants by failed complaining union workers, but first let's follow the logic that says wanting America to be more like China is patriotic.

Not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying only that if China knows that the tariffs we charge on their imports match what they charge on ours, China will then have a strong incentive to lower theirs.

Some say our economic recovery with 9.1% unemployment is the worst recovery ever and others say it's because import taxes are too low. The fact is that the 1933-1937 'recovery' had 25% unemployment and the difference was back then we collected duties on half of imports compared to our current 4%.

Which has nothing to do with the argument. Those duties weren't mirrored tariffs.

If you think America needs more import taxes then you donate the same percentage of your income that I volunteered for my time in the service.

Donating to the treasury is not going to help the trade imbalance.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Differing tariffs are irrelevant. The only question to be asked is whether or not you are better off making the trade. Trades don't have to be equal, all that matters is whether or not you benefit from it.

Agreed, and I've just demonstrated why we're not benefiting.

 

[expat_panama]

...one of the top reasons that so many jobs have gone overseas? In the US, tariffs on manufactured goods (where they exist at all) average anywhere from 2-5%...

The idea being higher tariffs increase employment.

...the 1933-1937 'recovery' had 25% unemployment and the difference was back then we collected duties on half of imports compared to our current 4%.

Which has nothing to do with the argument. Those duties weren't mirrored tariffs...

This means the employment creating tariffs are 'mirrored'.

Every trade treaty has proponents that say it's mirrored and opponents that say it isn't. Where we need to go is saying what are we changing in which agreement. Some posters on these threads want 100% tariffs on all imports w/ scrapping all trade agreements. Besides being stupid it's also not going to happen in real life on this planet.

...If you think America needs more import taxes then you donate...

Donating to the treasury is not going to help the trade imbalance.

This is a new tack, not only because trade imbalances can go either way regardless of how 'mirrored' the tariffs are, but also because we were talking jobs--

--and increasing trade deficits come with low unemployment and vice versa; our choice is whether we want more jobs or a trade surplus.

 

[expat_panama]

Differing tariffs are irrelevant. The only question to be asked is whether or not you are better off making the trade. Trades don't have to be equal, all that matters is whether or not you benefit from it.

Agreed, and I've just demonstrated why we're not benefiting.

Pinqy can correct me if I'm guessing wrong, but my take is that he's talking about the individual and not the collective, and that the only person who can decide if an exchange is good or not is the person making the exchange --not the state. That's pretty much my view too, that people are good and can run their own lives. The people tell the state what to do and not the other way around.

 

[Wiseacre]

Differing tariffs are irrelevant. The only question to be asked is whether or not you are better off making the trade. Trades don't have to be equal, all that matters is whether or not you benefit from it.

Agreed, and I've just demonstrated why we're not benefiting.

Pinqy can correct me if I'm guessing wrong, but my take is that he's talking about the individual and not the collective, and that the only person who can decide if an exchange is good or not is the person making the exchange --not the state. That's pretty much my view too, that people are good and can run their own lives. The people tell the state what to do and not the other way around.

Not in China.

 

[Wiseacre]

Want to know one of the top reasons that so many jobs have gone overseas? In the US, tariffs on manufactured goods (where they exist at all) average anywhere from 2-5%. In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?

Genuine free trade, by definition, and its resulting benefits can’t exist unless both trading partners are playing by the same rules. Because "trade" is a two way street, "free trade" can exist only with equal tariffs – whether the rate is 0% or 50%. Without the balance, a much lower American import tariff just contributes to the erosion of our borders (and sovereignty) and an open door for the world to plunder our economy. The result would be, and has been, an exploding trade deficit that, if left unchecked, will eventually, maybe rapidly, destroy what’s left of the economy.

When other countries have much higher import tariffs than we do, here’s what happens:
First, their industrial base gains advantages from its protectionist tariffs if we don't match theirs. These manufacturers enjoy reduced or zero competition from their US counterparts. They can take the resulting increased profits and use them for R&D, better manufacturing equipment, and so on. Then, their products become even better and cheaper, making it difficult if not impossible for American manufacturers to compete in our own market as well as in the global market. All Americans suffer from this.

Second, lower import tariffs in the US don’t encourage the reduction or elimination of tariffs by other nations. They simply have no incentive. The purest model of free trade will only be achieved through the imposition of matching tariffs. The unilateral imbalance of US tariffs works against the pursuit of global free trade.

Free market absolutists will counter these arguments by claiming that any restrictions on trade impoverish those who are restricted. What they don’t realize is that this rule only applies to the consumer from the country with the high tariff and not to the manufacturer from the country with the lower tariff. You can’t ignore either one.

A tariff war is a bad thing for everybody. One of the reasons why the great depression of the 1930s was as bad as it was is due to a tariff war that broke out as a result of the Smoot Hawley legislation. You raise tariffs on incoming products, the other countries raise theirs, and presto you got a trade war that beggars everybody.

Look - say Amercian companies can manufacture product X at price A. But a foreign company produces it for A-10 bucks, a cheaper price. So the American consumer buys the foreign product, right? So the American companies lobby the congress for a tariff, which they do. Now the American consumer has to pay an extra 10 bucks for the product for either the American or foreign product, which means they now have 10 fewer dollars to spend on something else. So their standard of living went down, cuz now their money doesn't buy as much as it used to, right? AND, that 10 bucks they lost in purchasing power shows up in some other sector that is now getting less demand by 10 bucks per consumer. Great, you saved the jobs for the American companies that receive the benefit of the tariff, but lost jobs in other companies cuz they lost business. Net result of tariff: FEWER JOBS. LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ok Chief, so answer me this. Without using tariffs (which I'm in favor of) how do we turn our country around from a service economy to a manufacturing economy again?

 

[Wiseacre]

Ok Chief, so answer me this. Without using tariffs (which I'm in favor of) how do we turn our country around from a service economy to a manufacturing economy again?

Go to a flat income tax tax, 1% starting at the poverty level and gradually increasing to 10% at some point. No deductions, exemptions, credits, nothin'.

Reduce the corp tax rate down to 10%, a flat rate with no deductions, exemptions, loopholes, subsidies, nothin'. Reduce the capital gains tax to 10% too.

Do a serious scrub of our regulations, make sure we keep the ones we really need but not the BS. Make it fast and quick to startup a business, anywhere in the US. I'm talking less than 10 days. Same deal for patents, we can't be waiting years.

Tell the EPA and the NLRB to shut down for about 5 years. We start drilling right now. Offshore in the Gulf, Alaska, ANWAR, I've heard enough talk about getting off foreign oil. It's a big part of our trade deficit every month, and it's past time to do something about it.

Right to work becomes the national law. You wanna join a union, be my guest. You wanna opt out, that's fine too. Public unions at every level lose the right to CB over wages and benefits. The get what everyone else gets in benefits and their wages are tied to CPI or Wages index,maybe a average of the two. And they get a periodic adjustment to make sure they're not getting screwed. Every public worker from day one goes into a 401k, no more bullshit 6 figure retirement chcks.

Private unions and employees are on their own, the gov't has no right to interfere but no responsibility either to cover your pension and benefits.

No more wars with years of occupation. Fuck with us, we blow your ass to kingdom come.

Come up with a plan that addresses debt and deficits in a meaningful way. Everything on the table, all entitlements, defense, everything. Doesn't have to balance the budget right away, but it has to be doable.

Do comprehensive campaign reform, no more 3rd party TV ads, no more donations over $500 from anybody. ANYBODY. Every donation goes through an independent campaign finance board before it gets to the candidate. If it checks out, he/she gets the money but the donor is publicized on an open list. If it doesn't checkout, the money goes to an open fund that is evenly distributed between all candidates. Transgressors go to jail, all guilty parties AND the candidate spend time in the slammer.


RE foreign trade: you wanna trade with us, we'll do free trade. You try to cheat us, we're gonna have to talk. If talking doesn't work, we start taking action,maybe devalue your currency compared to the dollar. If you don't like it, tough shit.



These things will revitalize the US economy, including manufacturing. This is what I'd do.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ok Chief, so answer me this. Without using tariffs (which I'm in favor of) how do we turn our country around from a service economy to a manufacturing economy again?

Go to a flat income tax tax, 1% starting at the poverty level and gradually increasing to 10% at some point. No deductions, exemptions, credits, nothin'.

Reduce the corp tax rate down to 10%, a flat rate with no deductions, exemptions, loopholes, subsidies, nothin'. Reduce the capital gains tax to 10% too.

Do a serious scrub of our regulations, make sure we keep the ones we really need but not the BS. Make it fast and quick to startup a business, anywhere in the US. I'm talking less than 10 days. Same deal for patents, we can't be waiting years.

Tell the EPA and the NLRB to shut down for about 5 years. We start drilling right now. Offshore in the Gulf, Alaska, ANWAR, I've heard enough talk about getting off foreign oil. It's a big part of our trade deficit every month, and it's past time to do something about it.

Right to work becomes the national law. You wanna join a union, be my guest. You wanna opt out, that's fine too. Public unions at every level lose the right to CB over wages and benefits. The get what everyone else gets in benefits and their wages are tied to CPI or Wages index,maybe a average of the two. And they get a periodic adjustment to make sure they're not getting screwed. Every public worker from day one goes into a 401k, no more bullshit 6 figure retirement chcks.

Private unions and employees are on their own, the gov't has no right to interfere but no responsibility either to cover your pension and benefits.

No more wars with years of occupation. Fuck with us, we blow your ass to kingdom come.

Come up with a plan that addresses debt and deficits in a meaningful way. Everything on the table, all entitlements, defense, everything. Doesn't have to balance the budget right away, but it has to be doable.

Do comprehensive campaign reform, no more 3rd party TV ads, no more donations over $500 from anybody. ANYBODY. Every donation goes through an independent campaign finance board before it gets to the candidate. If it checks out, he/she gets the money but the donor is publicized on an open list. If it doesn't checkout, the money goes to an open fund that is evenly distributed between all candidates. Transgressors go to jail, all guilty parties AND the candidate spend time in the slammer.


RE foreign trade: you wanna trade with us, we'll do free trade. You try to cheat us, we're gonna have to talk. If talking doesn't work, we start taking action,maybe devalue your currency compared to the dollar. If you don't like it, tough shit.



These things will revitalize the US economy, including manufacturing. This is what I'd do.

Nice!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Want to know one of the top reasons that so many jobs have gone overseas? In the US, tariffs on manufactured goods (where they exist at all) average anywhere from 2-5%. In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?

Genuine free trade, by definition, and its resulting benefits can’t exist unless both trading partners are playing by the same rules. Because "trade" is a two way street, "free trade" can exist only with equal tariffs – whether the rate is 0% or 50%. Without the balance, a much lower American import tariff just contributes to the erosion of our borders (and sovereignty) and an open door for the world to plunder our economy. The result would be, and has been, an exploding trade deficit that, if left unchecked, will eventually, maybe rapidly, destroy what’s left of the economy.

When other countries have much higher import tariffs than we do, here’s what happens:
First, their industrial base gains advantages from its protectionist tariffs if we don't match theirs. These manufacturers enjoy reduced or zero competition from their US counterparts. They can take the resulting increased profits and use them for R&D, better manufacturing equipment, and so on. Then, their products become even better and cheaper, making it difficult if not impossible for American manufacturers to compete in our own market as well as in the global market. All Americans suffer from this.

Second, lower import tariffs in the US don’t encourage the reduction or elimination of tariffs by other nations. They simply have no incentive. The purest model of free trade will only be achieved through the imposition of matching tariffs. The unilateral imbalance of US tariffs works against the pursuit of global free trade.

Free market absolutists will counter these arguments by claiming that any restrictions on trade impoverish those who are restricted. What they don’t realize is that this rule only applies to the consumer from the country with the high tariff and not to the manufacturer from the country with the lower tariff. You can’t ignore either one.

A tariff war is a bad thing for everybody. One of the reasons why the great depression of the 1930s was as bad as it was is due to a tariff war that broke out as a result of the Smoot Hawley legislation. You raise tariffs on incoming products, the other countries raise theirs, and presto you got a trade war that beggars everybody.

An open policy of mirroring another nation's tariffs is not the same thing as a tariff war. When there's a clear incentive for another country to reduce its tariffs - because of a clear commitment from the US - tariffs will start to go down, possibly even to the ideal rate of 0%.

Look - say Amercian companies can manufacture product X at price A. But a foreign company produces it for A-10 bucks, a cheaper price. So the American consumer buys the foreign product, right? So the American companies lobby the congress for a tariff, which they do. Now the American consumer has to pay an extra 10 bucks for the product for either the American or foreign product, which means they now have 10 fewer dollars to spend on something else. So their standard of living went down, cuz now their money doesn't buy as much as it used to, right? AND, that 10 bucks they lost in purchasing power shows up in some other sector that is now getting less demand by 10 bucks per consumer. Great, you saved the jobs for the American companies that receive the benefit of the tariff, but lost jobs in other companies cuz they lost business. Net result of tariff: FEWER JOBS. LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.

This is fallacy because it takes into account only the consumer variable, leading to an inaccurate conclusion. You have to look at what happens to American manufacturers when American tariffs are lower. As I said in the OP, when American manufacturers have competition that their foreign counterparts have the luxury of avoiding, our industrial base gets weaker.

Look at it like this. Entrepreneurs who risk a great deal of their own money to create a new manufacturing business do not do it so that people can buy product X for less money. They start businesses to make a profit for themselves. When the ability to profit is negatively affected by unbalanced tariffs, guess what happens. They decide not to start the company - or to close a company that used to be profitable. Those who depended on that company for a job no longer have the income to buy product X. THAT is what results in fewer jobs and a lower standard of living, not the other way around.

Don't keep ignoring such an obvious component of the equation, either you or panama.

 

[Wiseacre]

Want to know one of the top reasons that so many jobs have gone overseas? In the US, tariffs on manufactured goods (where they exist at all) average anywhere from 2-5%. In China, that rate is about 22%. In India, it’s 40%. Why aren’t patriotic Americans talking about this?

Genuine free trade, by definition, and its resulting benefits can’t exist unless both trading partners are playing by the same rules. Because "trade" is a two way street, "free trade" can exist only with equal tariffs – whether the rate is 0% or 50%. Without the balance, a much lower American import tariff just contributes to the erosion of our borders (and sovereignty) and an open door for the world to plunder our economy. The result would be, and has been, an exploding trade deficit that, if left unchecked, will eventually, maybe rapidly, destroy what’s left of the economy.

When other countries have much higher import tariffs than we do, here’s what happens:
First, their industrial base gains advantages from its protectionist tariffs if we don't match theirs. These manufacturers enjoy reduced or zero competition from their US counterparts. They can take the resulting increased profits and use them for R&D, better manufacturing equipment, and so on. Then, their products become even better and cheaper, making it difficult if not impossible for American manufacturers to compete in our own market as well as in the global market. All Americans suffer from this.

Second, lower import tariffs in the US don’t encourage the reduction or elimination of tariffs by other nations. They simply have no incentive. The purest model of free trade will only be achieved through the imposition of matching tariffs. The unilateral imbalance of US tariffs works against the pursuit of global free trade.

Free market absolutists will counter these arguments by claiming that any restrictions on trade impoverish those who are restricted. What they don’t realize is that this rule only applies to the consumer from the country with the high tariff and not to the manufacturer from the country with the lower tariff. You can’t ignore either one.

A tariff war is a bad thing for everybody. One of the reasons why the great depression of the 1930s was as bad as it was is due to a tariff war that broke out as a result of the Smoot Hawley legislation. You raise tariffs on incoming products, the other countries raise theirs, and presto you got a trade war that beggars everybody.

An open policy of mirroring another nation's tariffs is not the same thing as a tariff war. When there's a clear incentive for another country to reduce its tariffs - because of a clear commitment from the US - tariffs will start to go down, possibly even to the ideal rate of 0%.

Look - say Amercian companies can manufacture product X at price A. But a foreign company produces it for A-10 bucks, a cheaper price. So the American consumer buys the foreign product, right? So the American companies lobby the congress for a tariff, which they do. Now the American consumer has to pay an extra 10 bucks for the product for either the American or foreign product, which means they now have 10 fewer dollars to spend on something else. So their standard of living went down, cuz now their money doesn't buy as much as it used to, right? AND, that 10 bucks they lost in purchasing power shows up in some other sector that is now getting less demand by 10 bucks per consumer. Great, you saved the jobs for the American companies that receive the benefit of the tariff, but lost jobs in other companies cuz they lost business. Net result of tariff: FEWER JOBS. LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.

This is fallacy because it takes into account only the consumer variable, leading to an inaccurate conclusion. You have to look at what happens to American manufacturers when American tariffs are lower. As I said in the OP, when American manufacturers have competition that their foreign counterparts have the luxury of avoiding, our industrial base gets weaker.

Look at it like this. Entrepreneurs who risk a great deal of their own money to create a new manufacturing business do not do it so that people can buy product X for less money. They start businesses to make a profit for themselves. When the ability to profit is negatively affected by unbalanced tariffs, guess what happens. They decide not to start the company - or to close a company that used to be profitable. Those who depended on that company for a job no longer have the income to buy product X. THAT is what results in fewer jobs and a lower standard of living, not the other way around.

Don't keep ignoring such an obvious component of the equation, either you or panama.

You're saying that the US company depends that much on exports to another country, and when they slap a tariff on product X then the US firm goes out of business? That's a bit of a stretch I think. Most US companies do fine inside the US. Slapping our own tariff on their products coming into our economy in retaliation still means the price goes higher, and that ain't good.

If some other country is screwing us over, then we oughta be talking with them to change their policy. If they don't, then we start looking at our options. But I think placing tariffs on goods and services coming into the US is generally a bad policy. If we can't compete with their prices and quality, then we need to find something else to produce and make money at.

And BTW, I don't ignore anything bubba. Save the condescension for somebody else.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

A tariff war is a bad thing for everybody. One of the reasons why the great depression of the 1930s was as bad as it was is due to a tariff war that broke out as a result of the Smoot Hawley legislation. You raise tariffs on incoming products, the other countries raise theirs, and presto you got a trade war that beggars everybody.

An open policy of mirroring another nation's tariffs is not the same thing as a tariff war. When there's a clear incentive for another country to reduce its tariffs - because of a clear commitment from the US - tariffs will start to go down, possibly even to the ideal rate of 0%.

Look - say Amercian companies can manufacture product X at price A. But a foreign company produces it for A-10 bucks, a cheaper price. So the American consumer buys the foreign product, right? So the American companies lobby the congress for a tariff, which they do. Now the American consumer has to pay an extra 10 bucks for the product for either the American or foreign product, which means they now have 10 fewer dollars to spend on something else. So their standard of living went down, cuz now their money doesn't buy as much as it used to, right? AND, that 10 bucks they lost in purchasing power shows up in some other sector that is now getting less demand by 10 bucks per consumer. Great, you saved the jobs for the American companies that receive the benefit of the tariff, but lost jobs in other companies cuz they lost business. Net result of tariff: FEWER JOBS. LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.

This is fallacy because it takes into account only the consumer variable, leading to an inaccurate conclusion. You have to look at what happens to American manufacturers when American tariffs are lower. As I said in the OP, when American manufacturers have competition that their foreign counterparts have the luxury of avoiding, our industrial base gets weaker.

Look at it like this. Entrepreneurs who risk a great deal of their own money to create a new manufacturing business do not do it so that people can buy product X for less money. They start businesses to make a profit for themselves. When the ability to profit is negatively affected by unbalanced tariffs, guess what happens. They decide not to start the company - or to close a company that used to be profitable. Those who depended on that company for a job no longer have the income to buy product X. THAT is what results in fewer jobs and a lower standard of living, not the other way around.

Don't keep ignoring such an obvious component of the equation, either you or panama.

You're saying that the US company depends that much on exports to another country, and when they slap a tariff on product X then the US firm goes out of business? That's a bit of a stretch I think. Most US companies do fine inside the US.

I'm not talking about the corner barber shop, here. The Fortune 500 do business all over the world, and they also happen to be the biggest employers.

Slapping our own tariff on their products coming into our economy in retaliation still means the price goes higher, and that ain't good.

It can't be retaliation if every other country gets the same treatment. It has to be a very open, straightforward policy.

If some other country is screwing us over, then we oughta be talking with them to change their policy. If they don't, then we start looking at our options. But I think placing tariffs on goods and services coming into the US is generally a bad policy. If we can't compete with their prices and quality, then we need to find something else to produce and make money at.

Labor is automatically more expensive here, just because it's more expensive to live here. I'm not in favor of penalizing US business for that fact.

And BTW, I don't ignore anything bubba. Save the condescension for somebody else.

Okay, then don't complain about other posters "picking fights" when you do the same.

For the record, you seem to be a bright guy who's obviously very sincere, but on this topic I have to say that you're pretty naive.

 

[Wiseacre]

An open policy of mirroring another nation's tariffs is not the same thing as a tariff war. When there's a clear incentive for another country to reduce its tariffs - because of a clear commitment from the US - tariffs will start to go down, possibly even to the ideal rate of 0%.


This is fallacy because it takes into account only the consumer variable, leading to an inaccurate conclusion. You have to look at what happens to American manufacturers when American tariffs are lower. As I said in the OP, when American manufacturers have competition that their foreign counterparts have the luxury of avoiding, our industrial base gets weaker.

Look at it like this. Entrepreneurs who risk a great deal of their own money to create a new manufacturing business do not do it so that people can buy product X for less money. They start businesses to make a profit for themselves. When the ability to profit is negatively affected by unbalanced tariffs, guess what happens. They decide not to start the company - or to close a company that used to be profitable. Those who depended on that company for a job no longer have the income to buy product X. THAT is what results in fewer jobs and a lower standard of living, not the other way around.

Don't keep ignoring such an obvious component of the equation, either you or panama.

You're saying that the US company depends that much on exports to another country, and when they slap a tariff on product X then the US firm goes out of business? That's a bit of a stretch I think. Most US companies do fine inside the US.

I'm not talking about the corner barber shop, here. The Fortune 500 do business all over the world, and they also happen to be the biggest employers.

It can't be retaliation if every other country gets the same treatment. It has to be a very open, straightforward policy.

If some other country is screwing us over, then we oughta be talking with them to change their policy. If they don't, then we start looking at our options. But I think placing tariffs on goods and services coming into the US is generally a bad policy. If we can't compete with their prices and quality, then we need to find something else to produce and make money at.

Labor is automatically more expensive here, just because it's more expensive to live here. I'm not in favor of penalizing US business for that fact.

And BTW, I don't ignore anything bubba. Save the condescension for somebody else.

Okay, then don't complain about other posters "picking fights" when you do the same.

For the record, you seem to be a bright guy who's obviously very sincere, but on this topic I have to say that you're pretty naive.

I picked a fight? Where'd I do that? I don't agree with what you're saying, but I didn't call you naive or indicate you are oblivious to parts of the problem. You're a bright guy too, but you don't seem to be able to respect a differing opinion. I'm done here.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You're saying that the US company depends that much on exports to another country, and when they slap a tariff on product X then the US firm goes out of business? That's a bit of a stretch I think. Most US companies do fine inside the US.

I'm not talking about the corner barber shop, here. The Fortune 500 do business all over the world, and they also happen to be the biggest employers.

It can't be retaliation if every other country gets the same treatment. It has to be a very open, straightforward policy.

Labor is automatically more expensive here, just because it's more expensive to live here. I'm not in favor of penalizing US business for that fact.

And BTW, I don't ignore anything bubba. Save the condescension for somebody else.

Okay, then don't complain about other posters "picking fights" when you do the same.

For the record, you seem to be a bright guy who's obviously very sincere, but on this topic I have to say that you're pretty naive.

I picked a fight? Where'd I do that? I don't agree with what you're saying, but I didn't call you naive or indicate you are oblivious to parts of the problem. You're a bright guy too, but you don't seem to be able to respect a differing opinion. I'm done here.

I frequently respect different opinions, when the case for them is stronger than the one I've made. So far I haven't seen a strong case for unilaterally low tariffs, here or anywhere.

Nothing personal, I promise.

 

[The Rabbi]

The majority of job losses in manufacturing have come from greater efficiency, not off shoring. As pointed out, trade occurs when both parties benefit. Raising tariffs will ignite a trade war and everyone suffers. Protecting inefficient uncompetitive industries will make them worse, not better. Wonky Pundit smells funny.

 

[expat_panama]

...So far I haven't seen a strong case for unilaterally low tariffs, here or anywhere...

You may have misspoken and what you really mean is that you've never accepted the arguments that so many others consider strong.

The words "unilaterally low tariffs" make a better straw man than policy plank, so we may be better off working from points of agreement. We could possibly go from the understanding that tariffs are taxes and taxes are costs that restrict production and consumption. IOW, food tariffs starve people.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

...So far I haven't seen a strong case for unilaterally low tariffs, here or anywhere...

You may have misspoken and what you really mean is that you've never accepted the arguments that so many others consider strong.

Which is the fallacy of appealing to the popular. Just because millions of people believe in a rapture doesn't mean it will happen.

The words "unilaterally low tariffs" make a better straw man than policy plank, so we may be better off working from points of agreement. We could possibly go from the understanding that tariffs are taxes and taxes are costs that restrict production and consumption. IOW, food tariffs starve people.

As long as you're willing to admit that tariffs put in place by other nations restrict American production and consumption, sure.