Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[o_mlly]

The government is busily cutting them. Haven't you been paying attention?

Citations supporting your erroneous opinion that the government is "cutting social safety nets".

You wouldn't be interested.

Translation: "You don't have an alternate plan to address either deficit."

Such a brilliant plan. Why didn't I think of that?

Why? Because you're apparently not either a businessman or an economist.

 

[o_mlly]

How in the name of all good things does that negate my suggestion?
And the taxcuts were ridiculously imbalanced to benefit the billionaires.

Got facts?

Here's one:

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes? | AIER

Research Fellow Thomas Savidge digs into tax data to answer a frequently echoed question.

aier.org

Brady (2024) finds that the top 10 percent of filers earned nearly half of all income in 2022 but were responsible for 72 percent of all income taxes paid. Furthermore, evidence shows that the top 25 percent of filers have consistently paid at least 73 percent of all income taxes paid since 1980.​

​

Those who pay most of the taxes will benefit from tax rate reductions. Can you refute?

 

[o_mlly]

He didn't campaing on "I will bring you pain".

? Uhh, that's what I wrote. Got any facts, any facts at all?

 

[BCP1928]

Citations supporting your erroneous opinion that the government is "cutting social safety nets".

The Department of Education, for one.

Translation: "You don't have an alternate plan to address either deficit."

No, but you wouldn't like it. It involves free market capitalism.

Why? Because you're apparently not either a businessman or an economist.

Well, of course. From what you have posted so far, the plan is for businessmen to make more money, and the way you are going to carry it out is to make the poor work harder. As I said, it's brilliant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You missed the point. You, the buyer, are the one publishing your final offer.

This analogy has gotten so far afield, I have no idea what your point is. Stick to actual trade.

Well, I think it's you that does not understand, or more likely appears to not want to understand. Do you not have a search engine on your computer?

No I don't. I use remote servers for that.

2024 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

1. Rebalance Trade​

Our Trade deficit in goods has grown to over $1 Trillion Dollars a year. Republicans will support baseline Tariffs on Foreign-made goods, pass the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act, and respond to unfair Trading practices. As Tariffs on Foreign Producers go up, Taxes on American Workers, Families, and Businesses can come down​

That's a "jack up tariffs" to "fix" things plan, or is your summary incomplete. It's also just a party platform which is not some sort of economic or policy white paper.

Still waiting for your plan/policy to reverse the unsustainable ballooning US debt and the trade deficits. Do you have one?

Why do *I* need one? I'm not claiming to be an economist or a politician. I'm also not the one claiming (as trump and his minions are) that big tariffs will fix things. They are the one that need to show their work, not you or I.

I suspect you are just ignorant on the economics of international trade.

Your accusations are not distracting us from your ignorance.

Pickup a book on the economics of international trade. The dollar has been the world’s principal reserve currency since the end of World War II and is the most widely used currency for international trade.

We all know that.

I repeat: Still waiting for your plan/policy to reverse the unsustainable ballooning US debt and the trade deficits. Do you have one?

I repeat: I ain't going to give you one, nor do I need one to ask where Trump's is.

 

[o_mlly]

The Department of Education, for one.

Nope. The DoE is not a social safety net. Pls try again.

No, but you wouldn't like it. It involves free market capitalism.

Really? In as much as we presently do not have a free market capitalistic state but rather a welfare state via federal transfer payments, how will returning to the 1800's system solve the deficits w/o hurting the sick, poor, or elderly? I don't think your grasp of economics allows you to offer a sensible alternative to correct the twin deficits. I could be wrong, so pls try again.

From what you have posted so far, the plan is for businessmen to make more money, and the way you are going to carry it out is to make the poor work harder. As I said, it's brilliant.

Straight from either the MSNBC, The View, or the NYT talking points. Do employ some critical thinking rather than parrot these uninformed and biased sources.

 

[o_mlly]

This analogy has gotten so far afield, I have no idea what your point is. Stick to actual trade.

Do read the posts again. I wrote that the analogy was ridiculous from the get-go. Glad you now agree with me.

I use remote servers for that.

Then use them.

That's a "jack up tariffs" to "fix" things plan, or is your summary incomplete. It's also just a party platform which is not some sort of economic or policy white paper.

"Just a party platform"? Your effort to negatively rephrase the content just doesn't pass muster.

Still waiting for your policies to address the twin deficits. Got anything, anything at all?

Why do *I* need one? I'm not claiming to be an economist or a politician.

You don't need one. But your negative comments on the present policy are entirely vapid and can be dismissed as just whining w/o offering an alternative. So, I will dismiss you as being unserious until you provide some critical thinking on a better alternative.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope. The DoE is not a social safety net. Pls try again.

Yes, it was. It provided funds for students with special needs.

Really? In as much as we presently do not have a free market capitalistic state but rather a welfare state via federal transfer payments, how will returning to the 1800's system solve the deficits w/o hurting the sick, poor, or elderly? I don't think your grasp of economics allows you to offer a sensible alternative to correct the twin deficits. I could be wrong, so pls try again.

You're right about one thing--that we don't have a free market capitalistic state. What we have is corporate capiitalism verging on oligarchy.

tic
Straight from either the MSNBC, The View, or the NYT talking points. Do employ some critical thinking rather than parrot these uninformed and biased sources.

No, actually I am quoting your statements in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, it was. It provided funds for students with special needs.

Nope. The program out of DoE is based on grant applications and is not an entitlement. The grants are not considered as a "social safety net".

What are the major federal safety net programs in the U.S.? - Center for Poverty and Inequality Research

A summary of efforts to reduce poverty in the U.S.

poverty.ucdavis.edu

You're right about one thing--that we don't have a free market capitalistic state. What we have is corporate capiitalism verging on oligarchy.

Nope. Too much Kool-Aid possibly served by Bernie and ... what's-her-name?

No, actually I am quoting your statements in this thread.

Uh, huh.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do read the posts again. I wrote that the analogy was ridiculous from the get-go. Glad you now agree with me.

Then use them.

"Just a party platform"? Your effort to negatively rephrase the content just doesn't pass muster.

You've posted nothing but a series of vague tariff plans and tried to pass them off as "industrial policy" and then other distractions.

Still waiting for your policies to address the twin deficits. Got anything, anything at all?

You're going to be waiting a long time.

You don't need one. But your negative comments on the present policy are entirely vapid and can be dismissed as just whining w/o offering an alternative.

This thread isn't about the "Hans Blaster" case or plan, its about the "free traders plan". I didn't make this thread.

So, I will dismiss you as being unserious until you provide some critical thinking on a better alternative.

I am aware of your "rhetorical" tactics. I won't play your petty games.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope. The program out of DoE is based on grant applications and is not an entitlement. The grants are not considered as a "social safety net".

What are the major federal safety net programs in the U.S.? - Center for Poverty and Inequality Research

A summary of efforts to reduce poverty in the U.S.

poverty.ucdavis.edu

OK, so you define "social safety net" ss giving too much money to lazy poor people who won't work.

Nope. Too much Kool-Aid possibly served by Bernie and ... what's-her-name?

Uh, huh.

No, in this case the Kool-aid I'm drinking was prepared by Adam Smith.

 

[o_mlly]

You've posted nothing but a series of vague tariff plans and tried to pass them off as "industrial policy" and then other distractions.

Only vague to those who do not, or will not , understand.

You're going to be waiting a long time. ... This thread isn't about the "Hans Blaster" case or plan, its about the "free traders plan". I didn't make this thread.

OK. So, you don't have a plan. Show us the previous administration's "white paper" on managing those unsustainable trade deficits.

I am aware of your "rhetorical" tactics. I won't play your petty games.

"Rhetorical" tactics"? Nah, you simply don't have anything constructive to add to this thread. If you don't want to participate with me then don't reply, it's that easy.

 

[o_mlly]

OK, so you define "social safety net" ss giving too much money to lazy poor people who won't work.

New Interactive Data Tool Shows Characteristics of Those Who Receive Assistance From Government Programs

A new data tool allows users to explore thousands of social safety statistics 2013-2019 and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of recipients.

www.census.gov

• Health assistance: Medicaid, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
• Nutrition assistance: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and free or reduced-price school meals.
• Cash assistance: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
• Shelter assistance: Rental subsidies (including Section 8 Housing vouchers and public housing) and energy assistance (including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program).
• Social insurance: Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation.

 

[SimplyMe]

Only vague to those who do not, or will not , understand.

No, they are vague. Typically, if you are going to use tariffs to promote an industry you do very targeted tariffs. One great example is the "chicken tax" that we have in the US, where we charge a 10% tariff on any light duty vehicles (pickup trucks and SUVs) being imported into the US. At the time we implemented the chicken tax, as I recall, the plan was to protect/promote our chicken ranching and to protect the US truck manufacturing from cheap imports. Just, for some reason, we've kept that tariff in place for 60 plus years (yet are complaining about car import tariffs other nations have that are the same or lower than the "chicken tax" -- a bit of hypocrisy there).

By putting blanket tariffs on countries, not on specific products, you have not plan or a very vague plan. We aren't going to bring every industry back and likely don't want to. For example, as I mentioned elsewhere, clothing manufacturing typically does not pay as high of wages as heavy industry, so it likely is an industry we aren't rushing to return to the US -- yet the tariffs on clothing are the same as on cars, as on steel (which we need to build cars), on Rare Earth metals (needed to build any number of higher tech products), etc.

And this is yet another example, if we are wanting to increase US auto manufacturing, than it makes no sense to tariff things like steel, iron, and many other imports, since those tariffs raise the price on the materials manufacturers need to build cars -- making it less likely we'll increase our manufacture of cars.

OK. So, you don't have a plan. Show us the previous administration's "white paper" on managing those unsustainable trade deficits.

First, what made our trade deficits unsustainable? They weren't unsustainable -- so long as we generate enough income in the US to pay other countries for the goods we import, than they aren't unsustainable. And we were creating more than enough value in the US to pay our bills. As others pointed out, in many cases the countries that had large trade surpluses with us were using them to invest in US bonds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that running large trade deficits is not something we wanted to change, or even that it is a good thing. It just wasn't some type of emergency problem that requires a "quick fix." There is no ledger where we had to "pay back" what we were negative in the deficit -- we don't work on a bartering economy where we have to trade X amount of goods for Y amount of goods from another country. Instead, we just paid dollars for what we were getting and the dollar has a high enough value to allow us to pay for those goods.

As for the previous administration, they were getting factories built. Some of it was from the Inflation Reduction Act, others from the CHIPs act. In both cases, new factories were built (at least 181 investments in manufacturing from the Inflation Reduction Act; and multiple new and expanded fabricating plants to build computer chips, with billions in investment, because of the CHIPs Act. As others have tried to say, this is what happens when you have an industrial plan and create policy/law to get companies to invest in those plans.

It was a bit ironic watching Republican leaders who had voted against these bills then go to a ground breaking for the factories and claim they made the investments happen for their districts (one example). And as Trump has brought up that Congress needs to repeal these Acts by Biden, Congressional Democrats aren't wanting to do that now.

 

[7thKeeper]

No, they are vague. Typically, if you are going to use tariffs to promote an industry you do very targeted tariffs. One great example is the "chicken tax" that we have in the US, where we charge a 10% tariff on any light duty vehicles (pickup trucks and SUVs) being imported into the US. At the time we implemented the chicken tax, as I recall, the plan was to protect/promote our chicken ranching and to protect the US truck manufacturing from cheap imports. Just, for some reason, we've kept that tariff in place for 60 plus years (yet are complaining about car import tariffs other nations have that are the same or lower than the "chicken tax" -- a bit of hypocrisy there).

By putting blanket tariffs on countries, not on specific products, you have not plan or a very vague plan. We aren't going to bring every industry back and likely don't want to. For example, as I mentioned elsewhere, clothing manufacturing typically does not pay as high of wages as heavy industry, so it likely is an industry we aren't rushing to return to the US -- yet the tariffs on clothing are the same as on cars, as on steel (which we need to build cars), on Rare Earth metals (needed to build any number of higher tech products), etc.

And this is yet another example, if we are wanting to increase US auto manufacturing, than it makes no sense to tariff things like steel, iron, and many other imports, since those tariffs raise the price on the materials manufacturers need to build cars -- making it less likely we'll increase our manufacture of cars.



First, what made our trade deficits unsustainable? They weren't unsustainable -- so long as we generate enough income in the US to pay other countries for the goods we import, than they aren't unsustainable. And we were creating more than enough value in the US to pay our bills. As others pointed out, in many cases the countries that had large trade surpluses with us were using them to invest in US bonds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that running large trade deficits is not something we wanted to change, or even that it is a good thing. It just wasn't some type of emergency problem that requires a "quick fix." There is no ledger where we had to "pay back" what we were negative in the deficit -- we don't work on a bartering economy where we have to trade X amount of goods for Y amount of goods from another country. Instead, we just paid dollars for what we were getting and the dollar has a high enough value to allow us to pay for those goods.

As for the previous administration, they were getting factories built. Some of it was from the Inflation Reduction Act, others from the CHIPs act. In both cases, new factories were built (at least 181 investments in manufacturing from the Inflation Reduction Act; and multiple new and expanded fabricating plants to build computer chips, with billions in investment, because of the CHIPs Act. As others have tried to say, this is what happens when you have an industrial plan and create policy/law to get companies to invest in those plans.

It was a bit ironic watching Republican leaders who had voted against these bills then go to a ground breaking for the factories and claim they made the investments happen for their districts (one example). And as Trump has brought up that Congress needs to repeal these Acts by Biden, Congressional Democrats aren't wanting to do that now.

This is just a quick comment regarding the trade deficits, they don't seem to count services at all. For example, with EU, if you count services as well, US runs a small surplus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Only vague to those who do not, or will not , understand.

There is nothing to understand about Trump's tariff policies. He's an extreme merchantilist who foolishly and stubbornly sticks to notions that are at best outdated by centuries on the nature of trade. He thinks a trade imbalance is one country "ripping off" another and he managed (by the his son-in-law searching on Amazon for authors) one of the rare, foolish, economists that agree with that point. (Peter Navaro, inventor of quotes)

OK. So, you don't have a plan. Show us the previous administration's "white paper" on managing those unsustainable trade deficits.

They've been going on for decades. They are to some extent, therefore, "sustainable".

"Rhetorical" tactics"? Nah, you simply don't have anything constructive to add to this thread. If you don't want to participate with me then don't reply, it's that easy.

I'm sure you'd like that, to have no one to challenge your wrongheaded erroneous claims.

 

[DaisyDay]

New Interactive Data Tool Shows Characteristics of Those Who Receive Assistance From Government Programs

A new data tool allows users to explore thousands of social safety statistics 2013-2019 and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of recipients.

www.census.gov

• Health assistance: Medicaid, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
• Nutrition assistance: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and free or reduced-price school meals.
• Cash assistance: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
• Shelter assistance: Rental subsidies (including Section 8 Housing vouchers and public housing) and energy assistance (including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program).
• Social insurance: Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation.

There it is: free or reduced-price school meals.

 

[o_mlly]

No, they are vague. Typically, if you are going to use tariffs to promote an industry you do very targeted tariffs.

The tariffs are not vague. They ae quite specific as to country and percentages.

Targeted tariffs can work for particular problems, ie., dumping. General vague tariff can be, and apparently are quite effective, in bringing unfair trading partners to the negotiating table. Without those tariffs those unfair trading partners have no reason to negotiate.

It does not have to be an "either/or" but an "and/both. Stay tuned. We're in medias res presently. It's too early to do a post-mortem on the effectiveness of general tariffs.

 

[o_mlly]

There is nothing to understand about Trump's tariff policies. He's an extreme merchantilist who foolishly and stubbornly sticks to notions that are at best outdated by centuries on the nature of trade. He thinks a trade imbalance is one country "ripping off" another and he managed (by the his son-in-law searching on Amazon for authors) one of the rare, foolish, economists that agree with that point. (Peter Navaro, inventor of quotes)

They've been going on for decades. They are to some extent, therefore, "sustainable".

I'm sure you'd like that, to have no one to challenge your wrongheaded erroneous claims.

Yes, yes ,,, we get it, you don't like Trump. Got any facts?

 

[o_mlly]

There it is: free or reduced-price school meals.

Budget Reconciliation Update: Cuts to SNAP are Cuts to School Meals - Food Research & Action Center
No cuts to the federal child nutrition programs were included in the House Education and Workforce Committee’s bill