- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Congress opposes Trump on trade tariff.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:47 pm to ChewyDante
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:47 pm to ChewyDante
Companies that leave here SHOULD pay a price for doing it. If they like it in Vietnam or China sell their products to them.
A targeted tariff should be effective. Had Carrier moved to Mexico and tried shipping their units back here, and been forced to raise their prices because of the punitive tariff, people would buy other units.
Same thing with other companies. If they pass the tariff on, consumers will buy from their competitors that have not been hit with it.
A targeted tariff should be effective. Had Carrier moved to Mexico and tried shipping their units back here, and been forced to raise their prices because of the punitive tariff, people would buy other units.
Same thing with other companies. If they pass the tariff on, consumers will buy from their competitors that have not been hit with it.
1
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:49 pm to buckeye_vol
there was about 3 billion as I recall... but an effort was made to ensure that it was roughly equal... Those efforts were abandoned long ago, in exchange for cheap goods made with slave labor. The Chinese have since implemented protectionist tariffs and we have not responded in kind. Trump is simply addressing a problem that should have been addressed long ago.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:49 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Tariffs are not fundamentally conservative or liberal by nature
True but my point is over taxing and over regulating and then placing tariffs to try and offset that is not a conservative method.
It is like trying to end poverty with higher taxes....its a dog chasing its tail.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:52 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well a policy against free-market isn't an argument for it.
This line of thinking suggests that any government involvement whatsoever must convey an attack on free markets. That's an absolutist and dishonest thing to suggest. That's just rhetoric. Government intrusion should be as limited and narrow as possible, but I think it would be a tad absurd to suggest that regulation is fundamentally indicative of an argument against free enterprise.
I absolutely respect the counter argument for tariffs. I'm not fundamentally opposed nor in favor of them in our current situation, but I also don't dismiss them out of hand.
quote:
Sure, and the evidence doesn't show tarrifs as some highly effective policy, ESPECIALLY when there are more reasonable, less government intrusive policies avaliable (lowering taxes).
Agreed that lowering taxes and easing costly and prohibitive regulations is the most important first step.
quote:
Of which the average consumer here is probably benefiting.
One of the tradeoffs of differing policies, undoubtedly.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:53 pm to theenemy
quote:
True but my point is over taxing and over regulating and then placing tariffs to try and offset that is not a conservative method.
Well in this case I'd say we are 100% in agreement on that matter.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:53 pm to antibarner
quote:
A targeted tariff should be effective. Had Carrier moved to Mexico and tried shipping their units back here, and been forced to raise their prices because of the punitive tariff, people would buy other units.
Same thing with other companies. If they pass the tariff on, consumers will buy from their competitors that have not been hit with it.
The problem is...we are ignoring the reason the company is leaving.
And that reason is why its competitors will also leave at some point as well.
We are treating the symptoms not the illness.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:54 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Well in this case I'd say we are 100% in agreement on that matter.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:55 pm to theenemy
The point you are missing is this would not be a universal tariff but a targeted one. It would apply only to companies leaving the US to take advantage of Third World cheap labor.
Company A does this and their Widgets get hit with the tariff. They pass the costs on to the consumer, negating their advantages gained by leaving. Since theiy will no longer be cheaper than the competition, they lose business to other companies.
Company A does this and their Widgets get hit with the tariff. They pass the costs on to the consumer, negating their advantages gained by leaving. Since theiy will no longer be cheaper than the competition, they lose business to other companies.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 8:55 pm to ChewyDante
quote:No but it surely needs evidence to show otherwise.
This line of thinking suggests that any government involvement whatsoever must convey an attack on free markets.
quote:Well it is technically. I can see it as necessary evil in some instances (safety regulations), but that doesn't mean it's not still against it in some ways. In my opinion, the burden of proof falls into those instances to justify their necessity.
but I think it would be a tad absurd to suggest that regulation is fundamentally indicative of an argument against free enterprise.
This post was edited on 12/5/16 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:01 pm to theenemy
No, President Trump is not ignoring it. He said he will cut regulations. Lower corporate taxes. One time small fee for bringing money back from overseas.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:02 pm to antibarner
quote:
The point you are missing is this would not be a universal tariff but a targeted one
So the government creates a problem.
Then punishes companies and consumers for looking for a better alternative (due to the gov't caused problem) instead of fixing the problem and letting the market right itself.
Awesome idea
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:03 pm to antibarner
quote:Why can't we start here and evaluate the results before even beginning a discussion on trade regulations?
He said he will cut regulations. Lower corporate taxes.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:05 pm to antibarner
quote:
He said he will cut regulations. Lower corporate taxes. One time small fee for bringing money back from overseas.
This should be done 1st and let the market try and right itself.
Tariff's should not the initial response.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:06 pm to theenemy
The conservative argument makes sense on tariffs when other countries play fair.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:10 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
The conservative argument makes sense on tariffs when other countries play fair.
Again.
We over-regulate and over-tax and then call foul.
Fix our self inflicted wounds and then address what is fair and un-fair.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:10 pm to theenemy
quote:
The problem is...we are ignoring the reason the company is leaving.
And that reason is why its competitors will also leave at some point as well.
We are treating the symptoms not the illness.
We cant treat the illness we have to level the playing field. If you are going to use sweatshop labor to avoid our regulations and then try and bring the product back into the US to sell it we are going to tax the hell out of it. We have labor laws for a reason and you shouldn't be allowed to export it to some third world country and avoid all labor laws then bring the product back in and sell it to our market.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:13 pm to guy4lsu
quote:
We cant treat the illness we have to level the playing field
A large part of that is self imposed.
We tie our hands behind our backs, lean forward, close our eyes, and then complain that we keep getting hit on the chin.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:19 pm to theenemy
There is this misconception among the ivory tower liberals and conservatives alike, that Adam Smith did not believe in Tariffs. His writings discuss cases in which there have to be deliberation, including retaliatory tariffs. His difference from mercantilists was he thought retaliatory tariffs always should have the goal in mind of returning the situation to how it was and influencing the other party to drop tariffs. Trump's Tariffs should be imposed for the same purposes and dropped as soon as the Offending country does likewise.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:30 pm to theenemy
quote:
The very first law passed by the Congress under the new Constitution with the prodding of Alexander Hamilton was a tariff act that protected American workers.
"The enemy: Wrong, the 1st law passed was an act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths
The first important act then.
We can take by your comments that you don't think American workers deserve or are worthy of protection by the US government.
We know PE Trump doesn't think that.
Tariff of 1790
"In 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, calculated that the United States required $3 million a year for operating expenses as well as enough revenue to repay the estimated $75 million in foreign and domestic debt. Under the rates established by the Tariff of 1789, the government could not meet its obligations.
Consequently, Hamilton proposed an increase in the average rate from 5 percent to between 7 and 10 percent, the addition of numerous items to the list, and the passage of an excise tax. Congress refused to pass the excise tax, but James Madison successfully steered the tariff increases through the legislature."
-wiki
Naval Act of 1794
The Act to Provide a Naval Armament
Page two of the Act to Provide a Naval Armament
The Act to Provide a Naval Armament, also known as the Naval Act of 1794, or simply, the Naval Act, was passed by the United States Congress on March 27, 1794 to reactivate and establish a permanent standing naval force of the United States of America, which eventually became the present-day United States Navy.[1]"
-wiki
Posted on 12/5/16 at 9:32 pm to WhiskeyPapa
We can take by your comments that you don't think American workers deserve or are worthy of protection by the US government.
Which is Globalism defined.
Which is Globalism defined.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News