Some lies from Reason magazine, AP, Marketwatch and Capital Press about tariffs


#22

That politician, _ is not forcing or coercing anyone to do anything._ They’re simply lowering barriers, and letting people do what they decide to.

But you RET are coercing here, you are involving others, and forcing decisions upon them.

I know people who buy re-manufactured equipment from Chinese sellers to run their business-- to include industrial soldering stations, and laser cutters.

They’d like to buy American equipment, but it’s too expensive. So then, levying tariffs to make the re-manufactured Chinese models equate the American ones, hurts their ability to stay in business.

Yet, they were doing nothing to you or anyone like you.

To answer a grievance you have with China, you will make victims out of other people who have nothing to do with this?

Then that’s centralized thinking. By definition. You’re centralizing other people’s welfare; advancing one over the other, without the former’s consent.

You can’t describe this any other way. Lowering our trade barriers increases choices, it expands liberty. Fighting to put trade barriers back up takes liberty away.


#23

I repeat, agriculture, is the most protected sector in the world, and China is no exception.

20% for produce and natural milk, 25% for nuts, vegetables, and most types of meat ( brine,dried or smoked), 30% for most fresh fruit, 46.8% for “Other fermented beverages” involving fruit, 65% on wines.

And yet, New Zealand finds a way to sell into this market & grow. Because their products are perceived to have highs standards, and high value. Value you don’t find in most Chinese products.


#24

You finally decide to address something relevant and this is what you choose?

We GRANT nations their trade status, we and they agree to the standards that will be enforced when we grant access to our Markets; it is BY DEFINITION a specified power and responsibility of our elected politicians to do this in the highest legal and philosophical authority in this nation.

And I know people who are experts in setting points in distributors but are unemployable as mechanics because everything has an electronic ignition today; should we have deprived the entire nation of a superior ignition system that lasts 6 times as long with zero maintenance so these guys would not have to adjust their way of doing things?

Duh.

This really cuts to the heart of the matter doesn’t it, I have been LEGISLATED out of business 5 times in the last 35 years; these same vermin that took bribes to deprive their own nation of the Right to compete with those who sell to their same limited customer pool also passed all the domestic regulation that insured their “Chosen Entities” would thrive while thousands were eradicated from viable industries which provided needed products and services.

Take a wild guess who cried a river for me?
Take a wild guess who fell into the protected class in these “deals”?

I moved into other Markets and COMPETED until I could prosper, 5 separate times; at NO TIME did I think the best solution to my predicament was to wipe out another industry so my life would be easier. Take a wild guess where I will stand at the thought of your friends having to pay a little more for their Chinese tech; especially considering that their “plight” is a temporary matter in a BOOMING economy while mine was a PERMANENT state codified in law that did not “raise costs”, it eradicated the whole industry.

Compete, adjust or go flip burgers; that is how life works in the real world. Nobody has a Right to condemn the masses so they can avoid the inconveniences of life.

“Victims”, what a joke; every position you take makes MILLIONS of innocent victims. From open boarders in a time of rampant Welfare to supporting unlimited access to our Markets by foreign nations who prohibit our industries from accessing theirs; you have an “America Last & Never” agenda and you accuse me of making “Victims”.

Your precious ideas had 8 years under Obama to flourish and were birthed before his time, everyone saw what they produced just as everyone who is willing to look can see what is being gleaned now; but by all means keep smashing your head against that wall.


#25

The Declaration of Independence has it listed among the grievances the refusal of the King to allow to trade with foreigners. This was viewed by the Founders as a matter of liberty.

You can tax imports to raise revenue, not to alter people’s decisions. You know the difference. The Laffer curve removes any doubt, you can’t pretend here.

This frame is off, the market should not be coerced either way.

Let consumers decide what ignition system they want, equally let consumers decide where they want their products to come from, or if they even care.

What we each buy, is not a collective decision, and it was never meant to be. What consumers decide on their own, is the only legitimate result.

I’ve been wanting to say this to you for a while:

RET, I’m sorry for the hardships you’ve faced around this. I’m sorry if this ever put you, your family, or employees of yours that you cared about in a hard place.

But I can’t pretend that this serves as a justification for your stance here. It just doesn’t.

As, I don’t owe you a livelihood. I’m not in any of kind of Union with you. I don’t owe you my business.

My money is not in anyway yours, until I decide to give it you, and spell that out in a contract. Not a moment sooner. Until then my money is my own, not yours, nor the Government’s. Collectively deciding what my resources should be doing, is planning, it is violating liberty, and it is wrong.

RET, if you want my help, you have to convince me to offer it to you. Coercing me to help you is right out.

More than that, you’re helping to put them out of business. These tools wear out, they’ll need to get new machines, and you’ve made sure that this will be either encumbered or impossible.

And it’s not just them; the American company that does the re-manufacturing is getting hurt as well.

And you did this, not by failing to be a customer for either, but by violating their liberty. They didn’t violate any liberty of yours, nor did they make your ventures fail, yet you see no problem in forcing them to shoulder the blame?


#26

So we’re not able to sell all the stuff we make because China won’t open its markets? Yes, we are. And China’s market has been open. China, for example, has become a growing market for exported cherries from the Northwest since around 2010. The cherry farmers are concerned (not sure if they’re subsidized. My grandpa’s orchard never was btw, but you can call cherry farmers welfare rats too if it makes you feel better about their potential losses).

However, we also have a number of closed-off markets based on long-term tariffs, like sugar and pickup trucks.

We, our economists, have known for centuries how damaging protectionism is for those who engage in it. Allow me to quote from “The Wealth of Nations,” which the left is happy to dismiss as out of date but leaves me wondering whether you will:

Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium. Both suppositions are false. A trade which is forced by means of bounties and monopolies may be and commonly is disadvantageous to the country in whose favour it is meant to be established, as I shall endeavour to show hereafter. But that trade which, without force or constraint, is naturally and regularly carried on between any two places is always advantageous, though not always equally so, to both.

The sentiment by and large has not changed among economists. Some here and there disagree, but on this subject, it’s pretty well textbook and has been all our lives. We know now that it’s pretty much always disadvantageous to the country in whose favour it is meant to be established. China was and is losing! But now we’re going to lose with China.

Sorry for the giant link. I wanted to make sure you could see this quote in a copy of “The Wealth of Nations” instead of some untrustworthy website. Surely, Adam Smith himself still retains some credibility.

https://books.google.com/books?id=QiZFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=Nothing,+however,+can+be+more+absurd+than+this+whole+doctrine+of+the+balance+of+trade,+upon+which,+not+only+these+restraints,+but+almost+all+the+other+regulations+of+commerce+are+founded.+When+two+places+trade+with+one+another,+this+doctrine+supposes+that,+if+the+balance+be+even,+neither+of+them+either+loses+or+gains;+but+if+it+leans+in+any+degree+to+one+side,+that+one+of+them+loses+and+the+other+gains+in+proportion+to+its+declension+from+the+exact+equilibrium.+Both+suppositions+are+false.+A+trade+which+is+forced+by+means+of+bounties+and+monopolies+may+be+and+commonly+is+disadvantageous+to+the+country+in+whose+favour+it+is+meant+to+be+established,+as+I+shall+endeavour+to+show+hereafter.+But+that+trade+which,+without+force+or+constraint,+is+naturally+and+regularly+carried+on+between+any+two+places+is+always+advantageous,+though+not+always+equally+so,+to+both.&source=bl&ots=eeeKYwva21&sig=NArmvQjK-T9bEWSVm1yVetMrj3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiql-Kula3cAhXXHjQIHeuBAzEQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

Please see the above passage by Adam Smith.

I am not fine with any such thing. It’s stupid on their part. The exciting part of it is that they harm themselves not us. We’re still going to work and produce and sell. And we’re going to get cheap stuff from the country raping its own workers, so we win there too.

I have repeatedly responded to you. Furthermore, so has AS, and so has Milton Friedman and so have myriad other economists on both sides of the mainstream political spectrum and the outside of the political spectrum.

It is not “our money.” No matter what. If I buy a load of logs from you and give you my money it becomes your money. And no matter what you have to do something with it. You can put it under your mattress, and given the fact that American politicians must use inflationary policies to protect us from our debt, your money will be worthless. You can invest it somewhere that uses dollars and hope your interest rate beats the inflation tax, or you can spend it. Well, you could burn it too. But it’s yours. If I give a dollar to a Chinese, it belongs to that Chinese. Not me. I received value for it. I have not lost. And you certainly have not lost because I traded my dollar to a Chinese. You don’t own my dollars or the thing I got in exchange for it. The Chinese have no other options.

And so what if it never comes back to the United States? If China sits on the cash, what good does it do the Chinese? None at all. It has to use them somehow in order to win, which means they circulate, and they’re part of the market. As an aside, you talk as if “we” own those dollars. That’s just weird for a free trader.

And it is only after that two years that we’re somehow losing and must raise taxes on American consumers in order to benefit a few wealthy Americans.

Cost jobs? Jobs hang in the balance. When businesses shut down, it’ll be jobs. But it’s not just about jobs, it’s also about increasing prices – a thing that’s likely to cost jobs as higher prices drive down demand. That’s another downside to increasing the price of foreign steel and granting by political fiat American steel producers a higher price ceiling.

You don’t have to correct anything. Nothing was wrong for us. You keep mentioning that BOOMING economy.

To what garbage conditions are you referring? What “non central planning” politician exchanged these conditions for big donations and high-paying jobs for their friends? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you post some information, some sources?

You have had plenty of examples beyond the one. You reject them all as welfare rats and media liars. But we’re not talking about the boom. We’ve been in the boom and growing – without those tariffs. What I am telling you and what others are telling you is what they’re facing. I happen to actually have some personal knowledge about one business. I tried to explain to you what it’s facing in hopes it might help illustrate what tariffs are doing and will do.

You probably should answer these questions yourself. The tariffs did not create the boom you’re discussing. They hand’t happened yet. Are you retroactively applying them and crediting them saving our economy? You’re refuting any and all (except the bogus national security claim) justification for them with this paragraph.

The real data show prices increasing. Real companies in the real world are paying higher prices for resources as a result of the new tariffs. Companies across the board are paying more. They demonstrate inflation. The president today is worried about increasing interest rates and would prefer the Fed leave it alone.

The domestic automobile industry is telling Trump, no, please don’t “help” us. While the autoworkers union is cautiously supportive. That oughta tell you something. And that’s a massively bigger problem than the steel tariff. You are rejecting facts. You dismiss them over and over again. A few months ago, it was informed speculation. Today, the facts support that speculation.

The example (and it’s not remotely the only business dealing with this) of a U.S. manufacturer I gave to you has a long history of having a foothold throughout the world. But the president is doing a nice job of undermining that foothold. And seriously, a pig farmer and one U.S. manufacturer, the beginning and end of my research? You reject nearly if not every example anyone puts in front of you. You’ve rejected the pig farmer as a welfare rat who’s pretty much just a whiner and probably is going to get what’s coming to him, and it appears a real-life example I’m sharing with you is also rejected.

Bumper sticker slogans? I offer economic insight going back 300 years whether it’s based on logic, the intuitive side of economics or cold hard numbers. But you reject academics too because it’s not “real world”? Well I see what’s happening right now in the real world. It’s just like the academics said, from Adam Smith, who informed the founders, to Robert Murphy. Academic economics does not exist without the real world. And if it weren’t for academics in other fields, you and I would not be communicating right now. My philosophy is right, yes, and I see clearly how it is corrupted and being corrupted.

In any case, I’m wondering how we can discuss anything. You treat as liars any media who present any real-world story that criticizes President Trump’s trade policy. You reject academics who study this stuff, collecting and comparing actual data, actual facts, something that neither you nor I have time to do during our days. You reject academics often used by folks like yourself to explain, illustrate and promote free markets, for example Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman, who both spent their lives arguing for free markets – and rejecting tariffs. Sowell said they could be “catastrophic” depending on how far Trump pushes it as he compared it to the Smoot Hawley during the Great Depression.

If you show me an actual “nuance” that eradicates the philosophy I embrace, free markets, I’ll happily become a socialist or something else. To do so, you’ll be refuting, Smith, Sowell and Friedman. I continue to mention these guys because they are or were once respected among conservatives.

If you think trade imbalances and ending China’s subsidies to us are the thing that needs fixed, you’re looking at the wrong thing at least from our perspective. Our workers are busy doing and producing better things because China’s giving us free value we don’t have to produce ourselves (with whatever subsidy and trade policy they had in place) You can tell. You keep pointing out our 2-year-old BOOMING economy, which, in case you didn’t notice, encroaches into the Obama era. We’re only a year and a half into the Trump era.

Additionally, you don’t fix corruption by further corrupting the system.

Tariffs are widely panned, yes, by the left and the right and the neither. Sort of like the distance to the moon and the color of the sky. In your case, the industry that needs “protecting” is begging the president not to do it, while the lone voice in the wilderness is a labor union.

Yeah, fix the crony deals. Abolish NAFTA and leave nothing in it’s place. I’m a big fan of that. It would be good for Americans, Mexicans and Canadians. I don’t support free trade agreements, but I appreciate them as a step in the right direction if they actually decrease the “corruption,” including the cronyist targeted tariffs in our markets. There’s a lot of big fat nuance between me and some of those folks you list or could list. I could list them too, but like I said, the sky is purple, and we all know it.

The best economy in over a decade? And you want to increase taxes and prices on American consumers, producers and sellers! Do you not hear yourself?

No, been telling you prices will rise. Not that tariffs caused them to rise. You rejected and belittled out of hand one example interviewed by the “obviously lying media.” I do remember writing about America’s growing steel industry, you know, the one that needs Papa Trump to protect it.

I am staring into the face of a great economy while an economic illiterate and cronyist is poised to drive a nail through its skull.

So I haven’t caught or don’t remember your oil discussion at all. I don’t know what it has to do with tariffs. Those tariffs haven’t been in place during the current round of inflation. If you’d care to link some articles on the subject that you consider credible, I’d appreciate it.

Which rate is rising faster than fuel?

Yes, opening markets to buyers and sellers is wonderful. And decreasing taxes along with not violating free trade principles will help your economy hum along. I’m sure that Obamacare put drag on it. The Keynsians will tell us that Bush’s and Obama’s handouts to the banks saved our bacon. They’re full of crap, and I’m thankful that’s not an argument I have had to have with too many Republicans or conservatives yet. Reducing regulation has undoubtedly helped. Academics shows us this works. We’ve gone a good way in the right direction, but like good Keynsians, these Republicans can’t balance a budget, which doesn’t help. Now, with such an awesome economy in spite of ourselves, in spite of the absurd loans housing lenders are willing to give (if the bank gave me the mortgage it says I qualify for, the bank not only should be allowed to fail, it deserves to fail), setting us up for more hard times while temporarily helping drive that “great” bubble economy, in spite of the fact we’re all unicorns and rainbows now, we still need to impose protectionism to fix something. It’s mind-boggling.

Taxes are not competition. Taxes are statist interference in free markets. They stifle trade. They’re an advancement of the state not the free market at a time when the usual excuses (unemployment) aren’t available to support the argument.

Hehe, my cronies. When they experience pain in the wallet, the crony welfare rats – yeah, they’re not my cronies – They enthusiastically voted for Trump, and they’re going to bail on Trump. They’re going to end up blaming “free trade” for it. They’re going to elect Democrats and socialists. They’re going to elect even lousier Republicans than they’ve been electing for the past 20 years.

Are you blaming Chinese trade policy for putting you out of business? Or Americans for trading with Chinese?

This doesn’t sound like international trade policy. It sounds like we’ve got a lot of problems with our domestic economic policy.

I cried a river for you :stuck_out_tongue: figuratively, not that I know what particular pieces of legislation have forced you to adapt and change, etc. I’m pretty sure I’m against whatever it is they did to you five times. You are in a position to know my opinion. I don’t have to be a mind reader to know that Alaska Slim is probably completely in agreement with you too.

Yeah, that BOOMING economy is a temporary thing. Will the tariffs be temporary? I hope so. Sugar tariff is still on though, since 1789! The Chicken Tax on pickups is still around after 54 years. So I’m against these tariffs, and without knowing much at all about it, I am incredibly likely to also be very much against what central planners did to you.

I’d also appreciate a little sympathy for businesses and workers and people that Trump is sacrificing to his cronies.

Right. So please, tell President Trump to stop condemning the masses.


#27

China limits our access to China consumers and DEMANDS access to ours. How hard is this for you to understand?


#28

The part you’re msising, is that they damage themselves by doing this, they make themselves weak.

Markets are guided fundamentally by value, not cost, that’s why despite the mark up, New Zealand is selling more and more of their goods into China; because their dairy and meat commands an idea of “quality” that Chinese diary & food producers find hard to match.

RET’s idea that letting countries do this results in handing them a monopoly, isn’t correct. There’s numerous instances I can give to show that. For instance, Germany has greatly expanded its manufacturing base since China entered the WTO. China makes what it does, with German-made tools.

It’s for that same reason, that the tariffs we levied are hurting Germany the most; exports are a big part of their economy.


#29

Only YOU claim that this “damages” China. Almost no one else does. You keep forgetting (or overlooking) the FACT that China is still a COMMUNIST country…meaning central planning is a HUGE part of their economy policy.


#30

Every economist does. So do people who live in China. Because they can see the effects of the massive market distortions happening inside China, that you don’t see.

The Chinese put up houses by the millions, that fall apart in just three years, because their bricks are made to a deplorable standard, and there’s no invective to improve how they make them.

After all, why should they improve? The Government will subsidize them regardless of it’s well-made or not. There will be mandatory sales of their product by the Government regardless of if they improve quality or not.

So China gets a **** ton of bricks, that fall apart. They build millions of houses, that fall apart. They invest billions to build those houses, that are now worthless, and leave entire cities abandoned.

Pretty sure that’s a problem Dave. Pretty sure it’s also a consequence of them being communist.

Follow ADVChina if you want to see just how bad this has gotten there.


#31

We get cheap stuff and prosper as a results. The Chinese government extracts this from its own people. Donald Trump wittingly or unwittingly wants to do the same thing to Americans. How hard is this for you to understand?

Milton Friedman did in 1980. Insert the word China for Japan, and the situation is identical. Adam Smith did in 1776 in “The Wealth of Nations.” Thomas Sowell does. Those of course are conservatism’s economists. These are the people Ronald Reagan looked to.

Irrelevant to us. Relevant to the people of China. Donald Trump’s same central planning techniques are a danger to Americans. Not the Chinese.


#32

I’m beginning to understand why half of your screen name is “nut job.” So you don’t seem to understand that making Chinese-made products more expensive will cut down on their purchase? What does China DO with those products they THOUGHT they could dump on the U.S. but now can’t because of lowered demand?


#33

And cut down on our exports (because they’re built with parts we import), and make capitalization more difficult for us, while it remains the same for countries who continue to import their products at the same price.
Thus our global competitiveness goes down, and our cost of living goes up.

You’re fixated on one thing Dave, and not accounting for all the effects. When you do account for all the effects, you realize it’s not worth it. This causes more economic damage then what you’re trying to prevent. More jobs are lost.

Economists are unanimous on this. The only point in contention, is whether we can usefully get China to back down, or if instead, we’ll just end up creating a different cronyism arrangement with them that does some horse trading, like the Plaza Accords in the early 80s.

Considering how much politics and politicians are attracted to image, and not substance, I know which outcome I consider likely.


#34

Ease up on cracks about his screen name, please. Attack the post, not the poster.


#35

How is my comment an “attack” on anyone?


#36

The play on his screen name “Nutjob” is pretty obvious. C’mon, man; you can articulate your points without it; you’ve done it well in the past.


#37

It’s a “play on his screen name”…NOT an “attack.” When did we get so PC around here?


#38

I don’t suppose that AS has noticed that the EU has caved on trade issues to President Trump’s tariffs…which was his aim all along to anyone who was paying attention. This announcement came TODAY, by the way.


#39

This is what caught my attention. Before we do anything about tariffs, this is what happens:


"An EU official said there was significant pressure from Trump administration officials to increase EU soybean purchases as part of any trade deal."

The package of measures announced by Messrs. Trump and Juncker would have the EU buying more liquefied natural gas and soybeans from the U.S.

Funny, I thought markets decided how much of a good is purchased, not Governments.

Not unless the Government is doing the purchasing, or is forcing those purchases on its own companies.
Which would mean, this is a built-in favor for Soybean and natural gas producers. In exchange, we don’t raise tariffs on European automobiles, an industry not included in the “industrial tariffs” Trump is talking about lowering.

Sounds like horse trading to me.


#40

Good grief; it isn’t PC, Dave; it’s a question of simple common courtesy. You’re invoking his screen name to de facto say he is nuts. This isn’t that difficult to understand; please don’t make it into something it isn’t. I manage not to take shots at Alaska Slim’s screen name.


#41

Concur. Let’s not get in the habit.