- 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: Protectionism is not the answer
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:49 am to CelticDog
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:49 am to CelticDog
quote:
is to force China to increase the value of their Yuan so dollars and pounds are not at such a disadvantage .
While his treasury secretary just yesterday said he would have a strong dollar policy.
How stupid is all this talk?
3
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:49 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Any true conservative should vehemently oppose any attempts to impose a border tax. We have literally thousands of "anti dumping" tariffs already.
True, but I think many Trump supporters have given up the pretense of being a conservative.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:50 am to I B Freeman
quote:
While his treasury secretary just yesterday said he would have a strong dollar policy.
How stupid is all this talk?
missed that one, thanks.
let the resident Trump fans explain it. they probably don't care. He's not Clinton.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:51 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Does that mean we have put tariffs on some country like Columbia because we buy so much coffee from them but their economy is too small to offset those purchases with purchases from us???
Of course not. Everyone understands that there are greater and lesser economies among the various nations of the world. However, the economic policies of said countries should support free trade allowing fair competition/exchange of goods and services between nations.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:51 am to CelticDog
quote:
is to force China to increase the value of their Yuan so dollars and pounds are not at such a disadvantage .
China is not intentionally deflating it's currency right now. It is actually using USD reserves to prevent deflation because they have a problem with runaway capital flight. I don't understands nd why people think currency devaluation has no consequences.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:53 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:51 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Any true conservative should vehemently oppose any attempts to impose a border tax.
I am a true conservative.
quote:
vehemently oppose
What I vehemently oppose is acting as if we are the weakest country in the world. I oppose being economically raped by other countries. I oppose the notion that it's an either or economy. We can have tech and manufacturing here in the US.
WHAT I SUPPORT is fighting fire with fire. As a nation, if you add a tax to your side, we are adding it to ours. So long as we lead.... they need us a lot more than we need them.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:53 am to I B Freeman
quote:
While his treasury secretary just yesterday said he would have a strong dollar policy.
How stupid is all this talk?
Having a strong US dollar is now considered stupid? When did we cross over to an willful ignorant society?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:53 am to GurleyGirl
quote:
However, the economic policies of said countries should support free trade allowing fair competition/exchange of goods and services between nations.
The American Consumer is the one paying and getting fewer choices. Its basically a redistribution scheme
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:53 am to doubleb
I am much more in favor of not enacting tarrifs, that the average consumer will bear the brunt off, but rather reduce foreign aide to countries participating in these unethical and "unfair" tactics. Also renegotiating trade deals that are more beneficial to average/middle Americans as opposed to multi national corporations.
This would also include reducing the tax burden on those corporations domestically to entice them to relocate back to the US
This would also include reducing the tax burden on those corporations domestically to entice them to relocate back to the US
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:54 am to Jjdoc
quote:In what way are you a "true conservative"?
Any true conservative should vehemently oppose any attempts to impose a border tax.
I am a true conservative.
quote:
vehemently oppose
What I vehemently oppose is acting as if we are the weakest country in the world. I oppose being economically raped by other countries. I oppose the notion that it's an either or economy. We can have tech and manufacturing here in the US.
WHAT I SUPPORT is fighting fire with fire. As a nation, if you add a tax to your side, we are adding it to ours. So long as we lead.... they need us a lot more than we need them.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:11 pm to Jjdoc
quote:A strong US dollar is great.
Having a strong US dollar is now considered stupid? When did we cross over to an willful ignorant society?
BUT given your stances on trade, specifically the trade deficit, and support for government intervention to decrease it, I though that you would support a weaker dollar.
Guess you're not as concerned with the trade deficit as I thought.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:11 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
is to force China to increase the value of their Yuan so dollars and pounds are not at such a disadvantage .
quote:
While his treasury secretary just yesterday said he would have a strong dollar policy.
How stupid is all this talk?
Serious question. Is it possible for the dollar to be stronger against everything except the CNY? Is it really a contradiction for you to say that you would like a stronger dollar AND you think the CNY should be priced correctly?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:20 pm to CoachDon
quote:
Given the current trade deficit, by putting the tax on imports and not taxing exports, we raise revenue. The revenue off the border adjustment will be like $100 billion a year.
Issues?
This is deceptively simplistic and IMO outdated. Trade isn't necessarily zero sum. We can all win. Hell, we all did after 1945.
This is a fascinating time in terms of the history of trade. I'm sort of on the fence, I see both sides, Mercantilist and anti-tariff as well as acknowledging that truly free trade can lead to one economy effectively over-awing another - I think this, not socialism, is to blame for what is happening in Venezuela. Almost all their exports, and all their revenue, is one product. I do think the WTO should consider some sort of mechanism by which countries are encouraged, but not forced, to work a range of exports. But then I'm one of them crazy globalists, I would say that.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:24 pm to CoachDon
quote:Issues? Maybe we'll have to pay more for things. So unless that's compensated with some tax reduction elsewhere, I'm not going to support something to my own detriment because the government benefits from it. I might as well just starting having the government keep some or all of my tax refund if that's the case.
Given the current trade deficit, by putting the tax on imports and not taxing exports, we raise revenue. The revenue off the border adjustment will be like $100 billion a year.
Issues?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:28 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
You let a foreign govt. cripple a major industry and possible kill it so consumers at home can reap the rewards.
Sure.
Why would you permit a foreign rival to kill an important industry in the USA?
quote:
Ok fine, then what do you do when all the steel is foreign and they decide to leverage that against us. Do you just let consumers take it below the belt and pay obscene prices now?
No, I would expect the market to respond, and that industry would come back to life naturally. Fortunately for us we have the ability to respond quickly.
The market responded, steel mills closed, workers went on welfare or got other jobs. You can't reverse this on a dime.
quote:
And what happens to all the employees who got laid off by the steel companies locally?
Find another job. Crazy.
Great, but our economy pays the price and so do the taxpayers.
quote:
They wind up getting public assistance, or possibly taking lesser paying jobs and in the end the govt. and yes the taxpayers gets hammered all because a foreign government undercut the market.
Well then we better ban technology and innovation since it does the very same thing.
That's an entirely different issue, and a problem all societies wrestle with, but it doesn't have anything to do with protectionism.
quote:
If a foreign govt. is attacking our private businesses, our govt. should fight back.
The government is our savior, huh? That's the type of mentality I expect from socialists, not the other side
Our Constitution gives Congress authority to levy tariffs. As a strict Constitutionalist, I don't see how govt. is overstepping their powers by levying tariffs. What am I missing?
quote:
and can be a serious threat to our national security.
Maybe in rare exceptions, but the statists love this argument.
If the USA didn't fight back maybe the situations wouldn't be so rare.
quote:
Remember OPEC? Remember the Carter years? And what had changed since then? More energy independence, maybe?
American technology overcame the problem and our own govt's interference in time, but meanwhile we had the economy crippled by OPEC, we fought two wars, and it cost the economy Billions of dollars.
quote:
Free trade is no longer free trade when one of the trading partners is cheating.
But responding with anti-free trade policies, is a step further away from it. People can support that, but it's dishonest to pretend that they are for free trade when they advocate for policies further from it
It's either free trade or its not free trade. If one govt. interferes in the market no matter what the other governments do won't change things. It won't be free trade.
There are two options, do nothing and let foreign interests dictate how your economy works to a certain extent, or try to do things on your side so the interests of the US are improved.
I realize that is a simple outlook, and things are way more complicated, but simply sitting idly by when all the other nations of the world use their govt. to benefit their businesses while we sit and watch things slip away isn't very smart.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:19 pm to doubleb
quote:I may not like it, but either the industry can adapt or not. If the only way it can survive is at the expense of the consumer, and every other industry that loses when the consumer had to pay more for another industry, then it must not be that important.
Why would you permit a foreign rival to kill an important industry in the USA?
quote:Yep. Just like we argue that the minimum wage workers begging for more should adapt, those workers were no different.
The market responded, steel mills closed, workers went on welfare or got other jobs. You can't reverse this on a dime.
quote:But the economy doesn't suffer when the costs are raised as a result of saving an industry that only employs a small fraction of the population?
Great, but our economy pays the price and so do the taxpayers.
quote:Having the legal power doesn't somehow make it acceptable to use that power, especially since that power is largely ineffective, and invariably like anything in government, will probably have negative consequences.
Our Constitution gives Congress authority to levy tariffs. As a strict Constitutionalist, I don't see how govt. is overstepping their powers by levying tariffs. What am I missing?
quote:Previous energy issues aside, what industry has such foreign dependency that it puts our national security at risk?
If the USA didn't fight back maybe the situations wouldn't be so rare.
quote:Yeah. But let's not pretend they were beneficial to our national security, expecially as it relates to trade.
we fought two wars, and it cost the economy Billions of dollars.
quote:There such a simplistic cop-out.
It's either free trade or its not free trade.
Since we don't have absolute free speech, then we must not have free speech and then strict government censorship is fine since it's already not free.
quote:The problem is these types of policies to "save" some jobs and/or an industry have consequences for everybody else.
There are two options, do nothing and let foreign interests dictate how your economy works to a certain extent, or try to do things on your side so the interests of the US are improved.
I mean if I have to pay more for product A, then either I'm going to buy be less of that product, OR buy less of something, or everything else.
So when the consumers, and all the other products and services are detrimentally impacted by government intervention, how can we not justify government intervention for everyone who had been detrimentally impacted? And now you either create cronyism, or you create a perpetual cycle of government intervention and dependency.
Not to mention I don't see how one can morally justify government intervention in one case and not all others that have the same moral premise (e.g., minimum wage).
Posted on 2/24/17 at 1:49 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The problem is these types of policies to "save" some jobs and/or an industry have consequences for everybody else. I mean if I have to pay more for product A, then either I'm going to buy be less of that product, OR buy less of something, or everything else. So when the consumers, and all the other products and services are detrimentally impacted by government intervention, how can we not justify government intervention for everyone who had been detrimentally impacted? And now you either create cronyism, or you create a perpetual cycle of government intervention and dependency. Not to mention I don't see how one can morally justify government intervention in one case and not all others that have the same moral premise (e.g., minimum wage).
No doubt government getting involved, levying tariffs effects people, but not getting involved and foregoing their Constitutional role does too.
The is to try and find the best place for govt. to be to do the most good within the bounds of the Constitution.
The framers gave Congress the power to access tariffs, and to regulate foreign trade. They didn't give them a right to curb free speech, freedom of the press, etc. It is the Federal Govt. job to set tariffs and regulate trade.
Now I do agree that there is cronyism, there are lobbyists seeking favors, and there are a lot of ways for Congress and the govt. to abuse their powers. I do not condone that, but in theory there is a place for tariffs and you can't just say I'm a free market guy, watch the market be controlled by foreign govts.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 3:10 pm to doubleb
quote:They gave them the power to do something, but they didn't say you have to exert that power. I'm not arguing against the Constitutionality of it; I'm arguing against the negative consequences of using it, especially since it's counter to a principle and system that compels less government intervention.
The framers gave Congress the power to access tariffs, and to regulate foreign trade.
quote:No, but you argued that free-markets are either absolutely free or their not free at all. And very few, if any, freedoms are absolute, so then why couldn't your free or not free argument be applied to those too.
They didn't give them a right to curb free speech, freedom of the press, etc.
quote:I must have a completely different interpretation of the powers and rights of the Constitution than many here.
It is the Federal Govt. job to set tariffs and regulate trade.
I primarily interpret it as what the government CAN and CAN'T do, not that the SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do.
So not regulating something is just as much a use of the power as regulating it. Then it becomes which is the best choice. And 230 plus years of evidence suggests that less is usually more when it comes to the government.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 3:52 pm to doubleb
And there is a reason why the Constitution gave them that power. It for when other countries decided to cheat in trade.
Thats the bottom line.
Should should be a self sufficient country and trade accordingly.
Thats the bottom line.
Should should be a self sufficient country and trade accordingly.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 3:54 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
They gave them the power to do something, but they didn't say you have to exert that power. I'm not arguing against the Constitutionality of it; I'm arguing against the negative consequences of using it, especially since it's counter to a principle and system that compels less government intervention.
You have consequences in every action and nonaction.
Currently the consequences of our none action is job loss.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News