Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[o_mlly]

Without a published manufacturing plan, tariffs are not useful. As for "unfair trade practices" that's what GATT and WTO and NAFTA and the other various trade treaties *AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS* are about. You keep talking about "end games" when there are NO PUBLISHED plans or white papers about what these goals even are.

Logic? Do you publish your final offer to a particular car dealer before you go to that car dealer to negotiate a fair price?

The first has nothing to do with trade balance, and the second is not a real thing.

Yes, the fiscal deficit does incorporate the accumulated trade deficit in the interest paid to foreign traders who, to avoid translation costs, rather than convert dollars to local currencies, choose to buy US treasuries.

 

[wing2000]

Yes, the fiscal deficit does incorporate the accumulated trade deficit in the interest paid to foreign traders who, to avoid translation costs, rather than convert dollars to local currencies, choose to buy US treasuries.

Huh?

 

[BCP1928]

Huh?

They use their trade surpus dollars to buy US bonds, the bonds we sell them to finance our government's deficit spending.

 

[wing2000]

They use their trade surpus dollars to buy US bonds, the bonds we sell them to finance our government's deficit spending.

Is this a bad or good thing? [Assuming it's true]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Logic? Do you publish your final offer to a particular car dealer before you go to that car dealer to negotiate a fair price?

This is a pointless and useless pseudo-analogy. When I bought a car it was sitting in the lot and I knew what the wholesale price was. The dealer did not need to put forth a plan for building a factory to construct the car.

I don't think you really know what "industrial policy" is. It's not some sort of secret to be kept from economic competitors. It is a long-term plan, not something you might fully enact during a trade negotiation.

Yes, the fiscal deficit does incorporate the accumulated trade deficit in the interest paid to foreign traders who, to avoid translation costs, rather than convert dollars to local currencies, choose to buy US treasuries.

The $36 T national debt you mentioned is the size of the US debt paper issued by the US government over the decades to finance the operation of the US government. Trade is not part of it.

As for this "trade debt", if foreigners have sold US customers $21 T worth of goods just to get their hands on our sweet, sweet currency, then good for us. (Though I suspect you are just getting another macroeconomic concept wrong.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is this a bad or good thing? [Assuming it's true]

I'm glad there's somebody out there to buy it.

 

[BCP1928]

Is this a bad or good thing? [Assuming it's true]

What do you mean "assuming it's true?" It's a fact and plays a big role in our strategic relationships with these countries.

 

[wing2000]

What do you mean "assuming it's true?" It's a fact and plays a big role in our strategic relationships with these countries.

You know for a fact that countries use their trade surplus specifically to buy US treasuries?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

just to get their hands on our sweet, sweet currency,

Oh God No! You Lied! It's not sweet!

 

[BCP1928]

You know for a fact that countries use their trade surplus specifically to buy US treasuries?

It's a well know fact and the implications of it are subject to public discussion by both the left and the right. What else are they going to do with those dollars they earn selling us stuff?

 

[o_mlly]

When I bought a car it was sitting in the lot and I knew what the wholesale price was. The dealer did not need to put forth a plan for building a factory to construct the car.

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

I don't think you really know what "industrial policy" is.

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?

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​

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

The $36 T national debt you mentioned is the size of the US debt paper issued by the US government over the decades to finance the operation of the US government. Trade is not part of it.

As for this "trade debt", if foreigners have sold US customers $21 T worth of goods just to get their hands on our sweet, sweet currency, then good for us. (Though I suspect you are just getting another macroeconomic concept wrong.)

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

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.

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

 

[o_mlly]

It's a well know fact and the implications of it are subject to public discussion by both the left and the right. What else are they going to do with those dollars they earn selling us stuff?

Buy our assets eg., stocks, real estates (our homes and farms), or our debt. The former increases demand for a limited supply and causes inflation. The latter increases the demand for our debt securities and, therefore, our interest rates unless (or should I write "until") the Fed prints more money (back to the inflation problem). All of the above are not good outcomes for us.

 

[BCP1928]

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

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?

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​

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


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

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.

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

1. Reduce government expenditure by cutting social safety nets and programs deemed to be "woke."
2. Raise tariffs to reduce trade imbalances by reducing the overall volume of trade Tariffs also provide a windfall for US businesses by raising domestic prices for their products. The tariff money collected provides additional income to the government. This money can be used to offset tax breaks for the US businesses, insuring their profitability even though they are unable to compete in foreign markets.
That's your man's plan as far as I can tell. Don't you like it? Is that why you are asking for a better plan from a "liberal" like Hans Blaster? You must be desperate.

 

[rambot]

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

I have a couple:
1) Reverse Trump's billionaire tax cuts. If he was interested in tackling debt and if his supporters were as well, they'd be ALL over that. Shrinking government budgets would do something to help with debt, but not if the income ALSO goes down.

2) Convince American's to buy less garbage from OTHER countries. Americans are the richest country in the world; it just makes sense that they are going to be buying more stuff than others. But more importantly, you guys down there have a consumer mindset that is RADICALLY different from many other places around the globe. You guys REALLY really like to buy a lot.

 

[o_mlly]

1. Reduce government expenditure by cutting social safety nets ...

Got any facts in support?

... programs deemed to be "woke."

Elections have consequences. He campaigned on eliminating DEI. He won the election. Case closed.

Raise tariffs to reduce trade imbalances by reducing the overall volume of trade ...

Well, you got the instrument correct but missed the intended end result.

Tariffs also provide a windfall for US businesses by raising domestic prices for their products.

What's the problem, if true, that US businesses make more money?

The tariff money collected provides additional income to the government.

Congrats. You got that right. However, that happens IFF, consumers continue buy those imports with inflated prices. See: https://www.wsj.com/business/logist...596a?msockid=3b7583890ec26d32032b96690f106cb8

... even though they are unable to compete in foreign markets.

Can you guess why that is true?

Is that why you are asking for a better plan from a "liberal" like Hans Blaster?

Unless you also wish to be a just another negative kibitzer on the issue, feel free to offer your plan.

 

[o_mlly]

1) Reverse Trump's billionaire tax cuts.

Every taxpayer got a tax cut.

But more importantly, you guys down there have a consumer mindset ...

Yes, and the administration's policies are designed to reverse our consumptive behavior back to being the productive behavior that made the US a great nation. I don't know if they will succeed but it's a start. No politician in the last 40 years has campaigned on the slogan, "I will bring you pain!"

 

[BCP1928]

Got any facts in support?

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

Elections have consequences. He campaigned on eliminating DEI. He won the election. Case closed.

Right

Well, you got the instrument correct but missed the intended end result.

What's the problem, if true, that US businesses make more money?

Problem? It's the whole point of the plan.

Congrats. You got that right. However, that happens IFF, consumers continue buy those imports with inflated prices. See: https://www.wsj.com/business/logist...596a?msockid=3b7583890ec26d32032b96690f106cb8

Can you guess why that is true?

I don't have to guess.

Unless you also wish to be a just another negative kibitzer on the issue, feel free to offer your plan.

You wouldn't be interested. It might lower the GINI coefficient.

 

[BCP1928]

Every taxpayer got a tax cut.

Yes, and the administration's policies are designed to reverse our consumptive behavior back to being the productive behavior that made the US a great nation. I don't know if they will succeed but it's a start. No politician in the last 40 years has campaigned on the slogan, "I will bring you pain!"

Yes. Work harder for less money and America will be great again. Such a brilliant plan. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[rambot]

Every taxpayer got a tax cut.

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

Yes, and the administration's policies are designed to reverse our consumptive behavior back to being the productive behavior that made the US a great nation. I don't know if they will succeed but it's a start. No politician in the last 40 years has campaigned on the slogan, "I will bring you pain!"

ROFL! He didn't campaing on "I will bring you pain". He said "I will bring in tariffs" but I can NEVER recall him saying "and it is going to be very painful for All Americans"... So not sure if it's alzheimer's or selective memory, but your characterization of the election campaign is hilariously wrong.



He campaigned on "I will make you great. I will make America great". Now that his stupid plan is CAUSING pain, he's reframing it and those particularly lost from reasons are just buying it.

 

[dremnant]

Trump tariffs is the subject where both Republicans and Democrats get to hate me.

I'm personally opposed to this idea. He should have stuck with abolishing the EV mandate and easing up environmental regulations that would help lower energy cost/price and still drive up employment.

The most likely result of these tariffs would be companies ceasing operations, causing worldwide unemployment and drive up prices (making the poor suffer even more).