re: Tariffs. What libertarian Economists don't grasp and more.

quote:

---

Both you and stuntman make excellent arguments for contrary positions. I think that arguing absolutely for or against tariffs is foolish. Sometimes they are necessary and useful; usually they are counterproductive.

---

The anti tariff crowd is laughable in their inability to be capable of seemingly anything but "all tariffs are bad all of the time".

quote:

---

Both you and stuntman make excellent arguments for contrary positions.

---

It was a great conversation, the type we need more of.

quote:

---

I think that arguing absolutely for or against tariffs is foolish. Sometimes they are necessary and useful; usually they are counterproductive.

---

Yes and as I pointed out, Protectionism can go to far. But that's not what we have.

quote:

---

It’s true that staying committed to free trade would increase American wealth. The problem is that it increases it unevenly, and if wealth gets too uneven society becomes unstable. Also, eventually we will become oppressed by nations that are greater than us for the same reasons we are now greater than them. And that’s something we should guard against.

---

It also forces a major gap in wealth within the nation. And we have seen that via the middle class here.

quote:

---

And it's addressed in a link earlier. LINK

---

That article is propaganda. The author gives credit for the pre-tariff price trends and completely ignores two major data points.

It's the same bullshite tactic leftists have used for years when pretending gun control has reduced violent crime rates.

You should be embarrassed peddling that trash.

I just ignore him and Roger. They offer nothing to any conversation.

quote:

---

I just ignore him and Roger. They offer nothing to any conversation.

---

They really are the worst. Spending there finals days on earth crying about Trump lyong and showing how dumb they are is just an awful way to go

What people still don’t seem to understand is Trump tariffs aren’t protectionism in nature except maybe on specific items like steel production which are necessary for national security. His tariffs are punitive/retaliatory in order to get other nations to get on board with our agenda, whether that be crack down on drugs and migrants across the border, to drop the extremely high tariffs and trade barriers they have on American products, to invest in manufacturing here in America, etc.

Those countries would do none of those things if we simply asked them to. Why? Because they benefit far more than we do with the current system. They can manufacture and sell us stuff but they protect their industries and tariff the frick out of us or block us completely from selling our products like vehicles in their country. It has to be a two way street, the current system drains wealth from us.

I’d be all for zero tariffs both ways and we trade all products freely, and I think that’s Trumps goal. Access to the American consumer is crucial to them, and threatening to block that or make it expensive is a great tool to get them to agree to better free trade practices. It’s complete bullshite how we are getting fricked over. It’s redundant to argue the economics of tariffs because that argument is always done in a vacuum without looking at the whole picture and Trumps end goal. Not to mention Trump wants lower taxes and is deregulating industries which will more than offset any increased cost due to any tariffs that remain long term while negotiations take place. And those policies encourage foreign companies to invest here, since reducing tax burden and red tape means new companies come online faster with lower taxes and lower regulatory overhead.

quote:

---

I just ignore him and Roger

---

'

You ignore any factual information that deviates from the Orange god.

Thats how you became a leftist

Well put. I'm just going to copy and paste.


quote:
Damn. What does immigration have to do with tariffs?


It's actually in the OP. BTW.. you are arguing against an economist. The op is backed by a conservative economist.

Contrast economists’ disdain for tariffs with their enthusiasm for carbon taxes.


You are screaming over tariffs, yet fail to see immigration. Economy is economy. Immigration is part of the economy.

quote:
But somehow you are using it to undermine the credibility of Sowell, and by extension, his position on everything that doesn’t fit whatever narrative you’re trying to sell. It’s intellectually dishonest, and honestly smacks of a woman with BPD.


I don't think that's what he stated at all. In fact he said that Sowell has some great insight, but he isn't consistent. Sowell is a what? An economist. What does an economist do?

Economists study and research how societies use resources and make decisions about production, consumption, and distribution of goods and services, analyzing economic phenomena at various levels, from individual choices to global markets.

It's why Sowell had an opinion on immigration to the point he addressed what Ryan said (just looked it up... thanks JJ).

He went after Ryan (R-WI) for his statement that America needs immigration reform to avoid a “worker shortage.” Ryan was trying to explain that allowing more workers to come in the future would allow the economy to grow. He incorrectly used the word “shortage, which has a specific meaning in economics.

In the process he stated this:

After dinging Ryan for his word choice, Sowell went on to explain that if American farmers don’t have enough workers, they will just raise their wages to attract Americans into the profession:

“I mean —first of all to an economist, it is incredible to speak about shortages without talking about prices, in this case wages…You know there, there have been so many predictions of shortages of so many occupations and the shortages don’t materialize. And why not? Because if there is a shortage, the wage rate goes up. That attracts in more people and lo and behold, the jobs are filled.”

“The other main thing though is that if we don’t control the borders, we don’t have an immigration policy because regardless of what policy you put on paper, if people can just walk across the border when they darn well please, then your policy means nothing.


That is inconsistent with his stance on tariffs. For the reasons he believes the federal gov should step up on immigration and control the borders, and I agree with him, is not consistent with tariffs. Understand?

Let me word it differently. Per free traders, we should do what ever we can to lower the prices to consumers here. Therefore tariffs are not ideal. Well, controlling the border is the same thing. If we allow cheap labor to come in, then prices drop to consumers. So why have immigration? All you are doing is... PROTECTING American jobs!

quote:

---

I've gone from being a borderline socialist, slowly moved over to conservatism, and now I'm a full blown AnCap

---

Stuntman, extreme Anarcho-Capitalism makes the same mistake that Karl Marx made - assuming away human greed and then creating a system that, if greed were not a problem, would work great. In Marx’ case he neglected the obvious fact that if folks could not keep the fruits of their labor then they would not work very hard. In the anarcho-capitalist case the mistake is to neglect the fact that in the absence of a state monopoly on violence individuals will use violence to take authoritarian control.

So if yours is a modified anarcho-capitalism, in which the state is much reduced but retains its monopoly on violence, then I’m with you. If yours is a pure anarcho-capitalism then I’m not.

quote:

---

not talking about "free trade" I"m talking about freedom of choice in the market. We could choose to buy American, and all that that entails, or we can buy cheap. Tariffs take that choice away from consumers

---

Not true.