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

[KenH]

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

"After spending most of the 2024 campaign blaming Democrats for inflation and insisting that tariffs don’t increase prices, Donald Trump and his allies have a new economic message: High prices are good.
...
And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick put his own spin on the argument, telling NBC News, that, yes, prices on imports will rise, but American-made goods will get cheaper, and that’s what matters. (In fact, tariffs generally lead to price increases for imported and domestic goods, because the latter face less foreign-price competition.)
...
It’s true that affordable goods and services are not, on their own, the definition of the American dream. But they’re a necessary component of it, and trade is one of the most important drivers of that affordability. Until recently, Republicans understood this quite well.
...
Overall, studies conservatively estimate that American households save thousands of dollars a year from the lower prices, increased variety, and global competition fomented by international trade.
...
The counterargument—until recently associated with the political left—is that cheap and varied consumer goods are not worth sacrificing the strength of America’s domestic-manufacturing sector. Even if we accept that (questionable) premise, however, it doesn’t justify Trump’s tariffs, because those tariffs will hurt domestic manufacturing too. About half of U.S. imports are intermediate goods, raw materials, and capital equipment that American manufacturers use to make their products and sell them here and abroad.
...
“Access to cheap goods” isn’t the American dream, but it sure helps us achieve it. This is particularly true for low-income workers who have tight budgets and little leisure time. Shelter, food, transport, utilities, and clothes accounted for approximately 68 percent of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households’ annual expenditures but just about half of the richest 20 percent of households’ spending. It’s easy for someone worth, say, $521 million, like Bessent, to pay a few bucks more for everyday goods and still achieve his goals and ambitions; it’s far more difficult for a single mom with four kids to do the same.

Democrats used to be the ones offering a false choice between Americans’ access to affordable (often imported) stuff and our economic well-being.
...
Back in those days, Republicans defended the link between trade and American prosperity.
...
Trump’s allies have made very clear that they are trying to achieve a dream. It just isn’t America’s."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-republicans-learned-love-high-prices

 

[JonC]

The OP highlights the problem of protective tariffs. This was demonstrated in American history.

But the OP (the "original post", not @KenH who may not be aware of our history with tariffs) is also dishonest .

The current Administration is not advocating protective tariffs.

We also have a history with reciprical tariffs. The current administration is advocating reciprical tariffs. This, historically, has worked to bring down tariffs.

The other type of tariffs being advocating is more along the line of restrictive or punitive. Nations have historically used these type of tariffs (Biden implementing 100% tariffs on specific Chineese products, for example), the goal being to restrict products from the market or to pressure a nation towards a goal.


The reason many, like @KenH , confuse these tariffs as protective tariffs is that they can be avoided by producing on the US (there is an aspect of protecting the US labor force). The difference, obviously, is that the other natiin controls the tariffs (US tariffs decrease as tariffs applied to the US decrease). Rather than isolating the US from trade, reciprical tariffs level the field. It encourages manufactures to make products using the labor within a given nation.

The issue we have now is people simply oppose anything implemented by the opposing administration without honestly dealing with policy.

One nation imposes 20% tariffs on the US, but if the US imposes reciprical tariffs (imposes a 20% tariff on that nation) people cry it is not "free trade". But the inequity itself negated free trade (I'm not an advocate of free trade, just pointing that out).

 

[JonC]

How Republicans Learned to Love High Prices​

"After spending most of the 2024 campaign blaming Democrats for inflation and insisting that tariffs don’t increase prices, Donald Trump and his allies have a new economic message: High prices are good.
...
And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick put his own spin on the argument, telling NBC News, that, yes, prices on imports will rise, but American-made goods will get cheaper, and that’s what matters. (In fact, tariffs generally lead to price increases for imported and domestic goods, because the latter face less foreign-price competition.)
...
It’s true that affordable goods and services are not, on their own, the definition of the American dream. But they’re a necessary component of it, and trade is one of the most important drivers of that affordability. Until recently, Republicans understood this quite well.
...
Overall, studies conservatively estimate that American households save thousands of dollars a year from the lower prices, increased variety, and global competition fomented by international trade.
...
The counterargument—until recently associated with the political left—is that cheap and varied consumer goods are not worth sacrificing the strength of America’s domestic-manufacturing sector. Even if we accept that (questionable) premise, however, it doesn’t justify Trump’s tariffs, because those tariffs will hurt domestic manufacturing too. About half of U.S. imports are intermediate goods, raw materials, and capital equipment that American manufacturers use to make their products and sell them here and abroad.
...
“Access to cheap goods” isn’t the American dream, but it sure helps us achieve it. This is particularly true for low-income workers who have tight budgets and little leisure time. Shelter, food, transport, utilities, and clothes accounted for approximately 68 percent of the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households’ annual expenditures but just about half of the richest 20 percent of households’ spending. It’s easy for someone worth, say, $521 million, like Bessent, to pay a few bucks more for everyday goods and still achieve his goals and ambitions; it’s far more difficult for a single mom with four kids to do the same.

Democrats used to be the ones offering a false choice between Americans’ access to affordable (often imported) stuff and our economic well-being.
...
Back in those days, Republicans defended the link between trade and American prosperity.
...
Trump’s allies have made very clear that they are trying to achieve a dream. It just isn’t America’s."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-republicans-learned-love-high-prices

Democrats have been saying this for a long time. They point out that the policies of the GOP will raise prices. The strange thing is what actually happens is different. We always hear these prophecies while living through higher prices created by Democrat policies. Inflation today is lower than in 2023, for example.

What Democrats are asking us to do is believe that they are accurately forecasting what will happen under GOP policies. We already know that Democrats hold a different economic model. We already know that the economy works inversely to Democrat predictions.

Prior to essentially becoming a Democrat in opposing the GOP, @KenH was concerned about the national debt. N9w this concern has shifted to inflation that has decreased since the Dems left office by predicting what will happen if conservative economics are applied.

Do I believe prices will increase? Probably. We can't pay down our national debt and secure fair trade (as opposed to free trade) without some side-effects. Things just don't happen instantly.

Do I agree with reciprical tariffs? Absolutely. Do I agree with tariffs on Mexico and China? Yep. On Canada? Well....I don't get that one.

 

[KenH]

not @KenH who may not be aware of our history with tariffs

I am aware of the the place of tariffs in American history.

 

[KenH]

The OP highlights the problem of protective tariffs. This was demonstrated in American history.

But the OP (the "original post", not @KenH who may not be aware of our history with tariffs) is also dishonest .

The current Administration is not advocating protective tariffs.

We also have a history with reciprical tariffs. The current administration is advocating reciprical tariffs. This, historically, has worked to bring down tariffs.

The other type of tariffs being advocating is more along the line of restrictive or punitive. Nations have historically used these type of tariffs (Biden implementing 100% tariffs on specific Chineese products, for example), the goal being to restrict products from the market or to pressure a nation towards a goal.


The reason many, like @KenH , confuse these tariffs as protective tariffs is that they can be avoided by producing on the US (there is an aspect of protecting the US labor force). The difference, obviously, is that the other natiin controls the tariffs (US tariffs decrease as tariffs applied to the US decrease). Rather than isolating the US from trade, reciprical tariffs level the field. It encourages manufactures to make products using the labor within a given nation.

The issue we have now is people simply oppose anything implemented by the opposing administration without honestly dealing with policy.

One nation imposes 20% tariffs on the US, but if the US imposes reciprical tariffs (imposes a 20% tariff on that nation) people cry it is not "free trade". But the inequity itself negated free trade (I'm not an advocate of free trade, just pointing that out).

@JonC, why do you want to punish American consumers for the actions of foreign nations?

 

[KenH]

he reason many, like @KenH , confuse these tariffs

I am not confused, @JonC. I advocate for the free market.

 

[KenH]

Prior to essentially becoming a Democrat in opposing the GOP,

To be clear, @JonC, I am opposed to both of the major political parties. I would not give a plug nickel for the the Republican or Democratic Parties. They are both big government, buttinsky political parties.

I ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2014. I wish the hour long debate that I participated in with my Republican and Democratic opponents, that was televised statewide, was still available online. You would learn a whole lot about my political philosophy if you could watch it online.

So, instead, I will quote Frank S. Meyer's political philosophy. Mine is in sync with what he articulated in 1962:

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence."
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions.

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

 

[JonC]

@JonC, why do you want to punish American consumers for the actions of foreign nations?

It is not punishing American consumers (it is the opposite). You seem to think that Ametican consumers are not American workers. You are wrong. We do consumers but we also comprise the labor force.

We cannot improve our economy by abandoning fair trade in favor of wishing we could have "free trade".

Why do you want to punish American workers to strengthen the economy of foreign nations?

 

[JonC]

To be clear, @JonC, I am opposed to both of the major political parties. I would not give a plug nickel for the the Republican or Democratic Parties. They are both big government, buttinsky political parties.

I ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2014. I wish the hour long debate that I participated in with my Republican and Democratic opponents, that was televised statewide, was still available online. You would learn a whole lot about my political philosophy if you could watch it online.

So, instead, I will quote Frank S. Meyer's political philosophy. Mine is in sync with what he articulated in 1962:

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence."
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions.

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

I am opposed to both parties as well.

Libertarians are foolish when it comes to foreign policy. The reason is they pretend that libertarian US policy will somehow extend to foreign nations. That said, there are libertarian aspects I like.

 

[KenH]

Libertarians are foolish when it comes to foreign policy.

No, they are not.

 

[KenH]

It is not punishing American consumers

Yes, it is.

 

[KenH]

You are wrong.

No, I am not.

 

[KenH]

We cannot improve our economy by abandoning fair trade in favor of wishing we could have "free trade".

Actually, the United States economy cannot improve by abandoning that free trade principles advocated Ronald Reagan and others, in order to chase the amorphous concept of "fair" trade.

 

[KenH]

Why do you want to punish American workers to strengthen the economy of foreign nations?

History has proven the destructiveness of using tariffs as an economic battering ram, e.g.., the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930.

History has proven the economic benefits of free trade, e.g., the United States after World War II and the rise of the middle class.

 

[JonC]

I am not confused, @JonC. I advocate for the free market.

No. You are not advocating for a free market. A free market system is within a nation. You are advocating for empowering foreign economies at the expense of the US economy, increasing the national debt and harming American workers.

The reason is that we are talking about tariffs. We are talking about international economic relationships.

I am for a free market within the US. But I am also for fair trade.

Your solution is to completely destroy what free market we have left in order to provide for nations that have absolutely no free market. You are advocating a policy that would increase slavery and child labor in foreign nations while destroying the US economy.


Now.....if we are just playing pretend then yea....it'd be cool if the whole world looked after workers, had fair labor practices, and had free market systems. But playing pretend is foolish.


If you had it your way there would be no US automobile industry (we can't compete with China, largely because China subsidizes it's products and exploits labor). Biden increased tariffs from 25% to 100% on Chineese E.V.s. Sure, if it were not for tariffs you could buy a Jolion for about $16k. But then again, the US market would have died so maybe that'd be out of your price range as well.

 

[KenH]

No. You are not advocating for a free market.

Yes, I am.

 

[JonC]

I am aware of the the place of tariffs in American history.

By reading your posts, I doubt it. You constantly go back to protective tariffs and how they hurt our economy and never reciprical tariffs and how they helped our economy.

 

[KenH]

You are advocating for empowering foreign economies at the expense of the US economy, increasing the national debt and harming American workers.

I am doing no such thing. I am for empowering American workers, who are also consumers.

The national debt is caused by the federal government spending more money than it has in revenue coming in.

 

[JonC]

Yes, I am.

Well....yes.....in theory. But not in practice.

I am for free market but also fair trade (free market within the US, fair trade internationally).

 

[KenH]

But I am also for fair trade.

There is no such thing as "fair" trade. It is an amorphous concept. What you may consider to be "fair" trade may differ drastically from what a thousand other people would consider to be "fair" trade.