Nafta 2.0 free trade or central planning?

[Brain357]

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Your $75 didn’t leave the county in either scenario...

 

[Brain357]

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

 

[bendog]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

Ey, what's up with the funny button love?

Your lack of economic knowledge is funny.

Lack of logical consistency, he has. But it's really meaningless. NaftaII didn't bring back jobs, and the China tariffs are not about that either, since mftrs are just setting up new supply chains elsewhere in Asia. It'll take 2-3 years, if the experts are right. It's about China's dumping, currency manipulation and stealing IP. Trump is right that they don't do free trade. If Lighthizer succeeds in keeping Trump focused on them, rather than appealing to emotions about bringing Maytag back (it is back but they make cheese) some good could come of it. If we punish Mercedes for building cars in Georgia (US), no good will come.

 

[OKTexas]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

Get back to me when you grow up and stop using buzz words. If you can't explain what you're trying to say, you're in the wrong place.

.

 

[bendog]

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

well in his scenario, Americans make the shoes, so they have jobs. But the distillers lose their jobs. And more importantly to your point, fewer products are sold, so overall there are fewer sellers. It is the classic free trade v. protection scenario. Do the increased shoe makers make up more, or less, jobs than are lost by the distillers going out of biz and fewer people selling shoes and booze? I think free trade is obviously the winner.

 

[bendog]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

you think the govt causing shoes to double or triple in price because it's a societal good is NOT central planning?

Get back to me when you grow up and stop using buzz words. If you can't explain what you're trying to say, you're in the wrong place.

.

You think it's not central planning to increase the price of goods because there's some societal good seen in having US workers making shoes?

 

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

Get back to me when you grow up and stop using buzz words. If you can't explain what you're trying to say, you're in the wrong place.

.

You seem to think they are good at central planning. I think they almost always fail when they try.

 

[OKTexas]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

you think the govt causing shoes to double or triple in price because it's a societal good is NOT central planning?

Get back to me when you grow up and stop using buzz words. If you can't explain what you're trying to say, you're in the wrong place.

.

You think it's not central planning to increase the price of goods because there's some societal good seen in having US workers making shoes?

What's wrong with US made shoes? Hell they might get some quality control and size consistency. I wore a 9e shoe all my life, now I'm waring 12.5eee import.

And no it's not central planning, you might want to learn what central means. This was a tri-lateral agreement between countries, not the dictates of a singular central entity.

.

 

[Toronado3800]

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

 

[Brain357]

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

 

[my2¢]

For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

That was one of the tweaks in the agreement I thought was merited due to the extensive number of other trade agreements Mexico has entered into throughout the years. Plus the only change from NAFTA 1.0 is that percentage is being increased from 62.5% or thereabouts. From what I was reading 6 months ago, the US had desire to bump it up to 85%, I'm not sure how reliable those reports were and if the 75% is result of a compromise.

 

[Toronado3800]

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

 

[Brain357]

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

 

[Toronado3800]

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

 

[Brain357]

Al Buddy sells less shoes because now the price is over 3x what it was with imported shoes. And his profits go down.

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

 

[Toronado3800]

Seems to me like he just sold a pair of American Made shoes for $75.

You bring up another point of mine though. If shoes and cars cost more we just might fix the ones we have. Someone is getting my money, the guy selling me an air compressor, my mechanic, GMAC or Ford, and the money I save will be spent.

Notice the mechanic is in America also, so if I don't buy that imported car or any car thanks to a tariff, there is more money in America.

This goes round and round but there is a point of having too high a tariff or the wrong tariff.

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

 

[Brain357]

The mechanic works on foreign cars too. Keeping cars longer sure would be bad for manufacturers and all the raw material suppliers.

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

 

[Toronado3800]

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

 

[Toronado3800]

Doesn't matter. That leaves me the money I'm missing to buy alcohol with.

Point is, people are going to spend money. Leave a dime in the bank and some guy is going to use it to leverage a bigger mortgage payment.

One of your future arguments comes in when the tariff creates a shortage, which we are very far from having in this land of plenty.

There is also the argument for exports bringing money into your country and a balance factor with the benefits of cheaper goods. We're not close to that yet though.

IMO that Marshall Plan talk where American Dollars are being used to prop up Mexico so we don't have a communist neighbor or terrible dictatorship to our south is a third.

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

I will ad though, changes of more than 3% yearly on anything can have a disruptive effect. For this intangible reason of time and adaptation spending habits get broken.

 

[Brain357]

The benefits of free trade are well documented. The Soviet Union was very protectionist, how did that workout?

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.