re: Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working

quote:

---

No the argument I make is that tariffs are a tool that has to be used for what is needed. Its based off history.

---

Your grammar/syntax is so poor I have a hard time understanding what you mean sometimes. Your first statement seems to affirm exactly what I said your argument was, but in your second statement you seem to be denying it.

Please restate this another way so that I make sure I understand and don't mischaracterize.

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

Go read one of those topics about corporations getting a tariff refund and get back with me.

George Washington endorsed tariffs and policies that protected and encouraged American business and manufacturing.

Was he a Bernie?

Hamilton... pro tariffs.

Adam's pro tariffs.

Jefferson.. pro tariffs and free trade where possible.

Madison signed the tariffs of 1816.

Monroe and John Q Adam's both supported tariffs.

Jackson signed the Compromise Tariff.

Buren, Tyler, and Polk all favored lower tariffs.

Lincoln... hugh on tariffs.

Grant forward were all high tariffs.

McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge... all pro tariffs.


On the other hand, the 2 worst presidents we have had, Wilson(transfered tariffs to income taxes) and FDR both wanted free trade.


Anybody reading what you just stated and the position of the founding fathers all the way up to FDR can only come to the conclusion that they were all Bernie Sanders and AOC.

quote:

---

is to put the founding fathers all the way up to FDR as Bernnie Sanders.

---

Nope.

The short answer is that the world is a lot different now than it was when people still shipped goods on land in wagons drawn by horses.

If you want a longer answer:

quote:

---

For the first 150 years of American history, tariffs were not a temporary political weapon—they were the foundational pillar of U.S. economic policy.

The U.S. relied heavily on them for two primary reasons:

First, Funding the Federal Government: Before the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, there was no federal income tax. Tariffs on imported goods were the primary source of revenue used to fund the government, build infrastructure, and pay off national debts.

Second, Nurturing "Infant Industries": Following the American Revolution, Alexander Hamilton argued that the young nation could never compete with Great Britain’s advanced manufacturing sector. High tariffs were intentionally imposed to price out foreign goods, forcing Americans to buy from domestic startups and successfully kickstarting the American Industrial Revolution.

Two things about that. Number one, note that the Industrial Revolution hadn't even happened yet when tariffs were firmly established in the American economy. Number two, that's exactly why smaller countries now still use tariffs. They are trying to protect small or fledgling industries. We now have the largest economy in the world...protectionism hurts us rather than helps us at this stage of development.

It's like consuming breast milk as an infant. That's an ideal food for an infant, but adults can't live on it.

Imposing tariffs in the 21st century yields entirely different outcomes than it did in the 1800s due to structural shifts in the global economy. In the past, products were made entirely in one country and sold in another.

Today, manufacturing relies on highly complex, global supply chains. A tariff on steel doesn't just hit foreign steel mills; it increases production costs for American car manufacturers, electronics brands, and construction companies that rely on those specialized global components.

In the distant past, the U.S. was a developing, isolated economy that could raise barriers without triggering a global crisis. Today, as a pillar of the global market, any unilateral U.S. tariff immediately triggers massive retaliatory tariffs from trading partners. This directly harms American export-dependent industries, particularly agriculture.

Also, the U.S. government no longer relies on customs duties to survive. Tariffs now make up a microscopic fraction of federal revenue, which is instead dominated by corporate and individual income taxes. Modern tariffs are used strictly as geopolitical leverage, not as a fiscal budget tool.

In a highly consolidated modern economy, large corporations wield significant pricing power. Economists note that when modern tariffs are introduced, large companies frequently use them as a "smokescreen" to raise consumer prices across the board—even on goods not affected by the tariff—to artificially pad profit margins.

You see this when people say things like, "Well, you get to choose whether to pay the tariff or not. Just buy American."

O.k., but that ignores something very important. Let's say we impose tariffs on German cars and consequently the price of Mercedes and BMWs goes up. Let's say, just to use easy numbers, that Mercedes has a popular SUV that used to sell for $80,000 and now it sells for $100,000.

Well, Chevy and Ford and other American companies had a competitor that was designed to appeal to the same customer who might buy that Mercedes, and it was priced at $65,000 before the tariffs.

In what world do you think they are going to keep the price at $65,000 when they could raise the price to $80,000 and still beat the Mercedes that they are competing with on price by $20,000 and leave an additional $15,000 on the table?

Of course they won't. They will raise the price proportionately.

Bottom line, insisting that tariffs "work" because we used them in 1805 ignores the position and development of the economy and industries of this country as well as the global market. Oh, and federal revenue as well.

---

quote:

---

I suspected you didn't understand the fallacy; now I know you don't. Wealth is lost in the broken window fallacy, not just reshuffled.

---

quote:

---

NO!
Wealth is not "lost". It is simply not acquired.

---

it is absolutely lost. If I pay a worker to dig a hole and another to fill it, have I created an asset (wealth)? Of course not. But that's what happens when we use capital on unproductive activity (malinvestment). Tariffs literally require us (by force) to use capital on less productive and efficient goods and activity -- because the alternates are too productive and efficient. It's literally the purpose of them.

quote:

---

The short answer is that the world is a lot different now than it was when people still shipped goods on land in wagons drawn by horses.

---

There is no short answer or long answer that will ever change the fact that the Founders all the up to FDR were pro tariffs. Period.

For you, in your own words, they are like Bernie and AOC.

quote:

---

Today, manufacturing relies on highly complex, global supply chains. A tariff on steel doesn't just hit foreign steel mills; it increases production costs for American car manufacturers, electronics brands, and construction companies that rely on those specialized global components.

---

You dont see it do you. That, within your long answer, is the crutch of it. Free trade created the issues that you are stating is a must for the USA. That we have to operate like that now. That situation was created. This environment was created. It did not exist prior to FDR. And we have the results.

We still traded with nations and exported goods. The whole time.

Free trade was about what Hull and FDR sold. To intertwine all nations so that they rely on each other to survive and that would end wars.

What it did was make us week.

quote:

---

Jjdoc.

---

And still no answer to the question.

So at this point I am taking the non-answer as an answer.

You agree with them 100%.

That's fine, but then don't appeal to ridicule when I tell you that you are on the wrong board and need to go to one or both of their websites instead. That's a perfectly valid suggestion when you obviously align with their policies.

I don't know why you won't just admit it and own it proudly.

Do you believe in protectionist economics or not? Don't be a pussy, mealy mouthing about this stuff and refusing to be direct. Stand up for what you believe.

quote:

---

1. First of all, 100% of Americans would be paying for those 12m jobs in the form of higher prices.

---

quote:

---

No. This goes back to your old flaw that you totally ignored because you can not defend it

---

This hilarious.

"Tariffs created all these jobs!"
"Tariffs didn't pay for the jobs"

Where'd they come from? I'm inclined to agree they were not paid for with tariffs. And we'd probably have them (and some more) without tariffs. But, you're seemingly dedicated to undermining your own claim here.

quote:

---

Which can have a place, but basing an entire manufacturing base on it is... not it.

---

Again, correct.

I've been posting for three years now that that valid concern can be solved easily without tarrifs.