Freedom, Not Tariff, Is the Most Beautiful Word in the Dictionary

[KenH]

I am pointing out that your posts indicate a lack of understanding.

No, they do not.

 

[KenH]

That is not an insult at all.

Yes, it is.

 

[KenH]

If you understood reciprical tariffs then you would have been talking about the Reciprical Trade Agreement (1934) rather than Smoot-Hawley and protective tariffs.

Tariffs are ALWAYS a bad idea, except when the Congress has formally declared war.

 

[KenH]

What happened when the US implemented reciprical tariffs?

The best outcomes have been when nations work cooperatively together to reduce trade barriers, not punitively.

 

[JonC]

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

fair trade
noun (also fairtrade) /ˌfer ˈtreɪd/ uk. /ˌfeə ˈtreɪd/

a way of buying and selling products that makes certain that the people who produce the goods receive a fair price.

 

[KenH]

If you understood reciprical tariffs then you would have been talking about the Reciprical Trade Agreement (1934)

The RTAA was anti-tariff, not pro-tariff.

"America’s historic turn away from protectionism began with the passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) in 1934. The bill gave the administration authority to negotiate agreements with other nations to reduce tariffs by up to 50 percent. Tariff reductions negotiated with one country were automatically applied to imports from all other countries that treated US trade on a nondiscriminatory, or “most-favored nation,” basis. By 1940, the United States had effectively reversed the Smoot–Hawley tariffs through agreements done pursuant to the RTAA."

- excerpt from https://www.cato.org/publications/h...mericans#reciprocal-trade-agreements-act-1934

 

[KenH]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

 

[KenH]

a way of buying and selling products that makes certain that the people who produce the goods receive a fair price.

And how is a "fair" price to be effectively and efficiently arrived at? By the free market.

 

[Revmitchell]

Bring on the Tariffs. Attaching the word freedom to the lack of them is to misrepresent them at their core.

 

[KenH]

The United States government should be working with the rest of the world to encourage them to move more and more to free markets. The United States government should not be working toward making the U.S. more anti-free market than it already is.

 

[KenH]

Bring on the Tariffs.

You pay them and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[KenH]

Attaching the word freedom to the lack of them is to misrepresent them at their core.

Not at all. Tariffs are anti-free market within the country that imposes them.

 

[Revmitchell]

You pay them and leave the rest of us alone.

No one will pay them in the US. they are tariffs on other countries for the purpose of getting them to lower their current and unfair tariffs on us. It will have zero effect on us and what we pay.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not at all. Tariffs are anti-free market within the country that imposes them.

When another country imposes tariffs on us, in some cases as much as 245% like Canada, and we do not impose any on them then it hurts American businesses and thus Americans in general. When other countries flood our markets with crap products and undermine our own businesses in our own country and puts them out of business then it undermines Americans. there are legitimate times when products coming into the US has to be throttled back in order to protect our own businesses and market. Throwing around generalized and vague terms like anti-free market sounds good but has nothing substantial to back it. it is nothing more than blind allegiance to an idea that cannot be supported by facts.

 

[KenH]

No one will pay them in the US.

Yes, they will. They are paid by the importer, who either has to eat the cost and/or pass it along to the purchaser of his product.

 

[KenH]

It will have zero effect on us and what we pay.

Yes, it will. Tariffs are paid by the importer, who either has to eat the cost and/or pass it along to the purchaser of his product.

 

[KenH]

When another country imposes tariffs on us, in some cases as much as 245% like Canada, and we do not impose any on them then it hurts American businesses and thus Americans in general.

The ones hurt are the Canadian consumers and Canadians in general.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, they will. They are paid by the importer, who either has to eat the cost and/or pass it along to the purchaser of his product.

I want to importer to pay those. I want imported products to rise in costs. I want the American products to cost less. I want America first to include our oil, gas, farms, steel, etc. Especially when their countries tariff our products going into their countries at 245%

 

[KenH]

When other countries flood our markets with crap products and undermine our own businesses in our own country and puts them out of business then it undermines Americans.

Who are purchasing what you call "crap" products? Americans. Seems like your issue is with your fellow Americans who buy products that you do not approve of. You sound like you want to impose your product quality preferences on them.

 

[KenH]

there are legitimate times when products coming into the US has to be throttled back in order to protect our own businesses and market.

Only when the Congress has formally declared war on another country.