There’s Still No Economic Case for New Tariffs

[JonC]

"With President Trump’s return to office after the Biden interregnum, we can be sure of one thing: tariffs are going to be a major part of his policy. He has touted tariffs as revenue generators, as ways to bring back manufacturing, and as negotiating tactics. The trouble is that all of these are in tension with each other, and none are particularly effective at what they purport to do. Indeed, their likely failure will result in harm to the people Trump claims to care for the most — working-class families.
...
To sum up, the three arguments for tariffs can only seriously be advanced by someone suffering from advanced cognitive dissonance. They are poor revenue raisers, they cause net harm to manufacturing, and they backfire as negotiating tools. These three objectives are mutually exclusive, and ineffective even when taken individually. A better policy would focus on reducing costs to the consumer."

- excerpt from Debunking the Three Best Arguments for Tariffs | The Daily Economy

Tariffs were a big part of the Biden-Harris administration as well. We just didn't talk about it. One of their biggest tariff increases went into effect this past September.

But Trump was referring to tariffs more like the Reciprocal Tariffs (not the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs). And the Reciprocal tariffs worked.

Why you think the US ending tariffs while paying tariffs to foreign countries is a good thing is beyond me.

 

[KenH]

then you could have a point

I have the winning position on this subject, Jon. You have the losing position. You should withdraw from the conversation while you are behind, because you sure ain't gonna catch up.

 

[KenH]

The government was funded largely through tariffs.

Yes, when government was miniscule compared to what it is today.

Also, the U.S. had a largely agrarian economy back then.

Sounds like you want to back, technology-wise and consumer-wise, to the horse-and-buggy days.

 

[JonC]

I don't think so. You seem to have no confidence in the United States people and businesses. American companies could become more efficient, and make better quality cars. Why should working-class families be forced by the government to subsidize inefficient businesses?

It isn't just about efficiency. In Mexico, for example, the average hourly income for manufacturing jobs is $2.80 an hour. Other countries have policies that damage the environment to a greater extent than the US, a weaker infrastructure, exploit workers (often including children), have low safety standards, etc.

I agree with you that if we dropped wages to an average of $2.80 an hour, ended safety regulations, stopped policies designed to protect the environment, allowed the exploration of workers and stopped protective child labor laws that we could produce cheaper products. But we woukd also have to be content with a lower standard of living, and we would still be paying tariffs on our exports.

If you like those other countries so much, if they are your solution, then wouldn't it make more sence to live there instead of trying to lower the standard of living here?

 

[KenH]

"In other words, the misconception that economic policy should be focused on producers is not a new idea, but one that resurfaces again and again. Just as with Britain's corn laws or the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that worsened he Great Depression or what is happening in countless countries like Nigeria, it will be the working class that suffer the most from the imposition of tariffs that are supposed to help them."

- excerpt from Debunking the Three Best Arguments for Tariffs | The Daily Economy

 

[JonC]

Yes, when government was miniscule compared to what it is today.

Also, the U.S. had a largely agrarian economy back then.

Sounds like you want to back, technology-wise and consumer-wise, to the horse-and-buggy days.

I don't mind paying taxes. I just disagree with you that we need to stop imposing tariffs on imports while paying tariffs on exports, or that we should abandon US manufacturing.

 

[JonC]

No, I am not. You are pro-big government and throwing up insipid arguments to try to defend your pro-big government position.

No. You are the one who voted to expand the federal government.

I am saying we should not allow fair-trade with nations that do not use fair practices. Your idea works only in a world that does not exist.

The problem with "free-trade" is it depends on common practices.


Answer this @KenH , If you can (you can't, obviously)

1. How can US companies pay a decent wage and compete against countries that pay an average of $2.89 an hour?

2. Many have manufacturing employees barely surviving, living in poverty, with family members coming here to make money to send home. They have a low standard of living but produce cheap products. Should we reduce ore standard of living and income levels?

3. These countries you present as wanting fair trace exploit workers, use child labor. Do we need to adopt those practices to be competitive?

4. You are talking about competing "fairily" with nations who lack safety standards, exploit workers, and have horrible environmental impacts. You think that is good?????

5. How can US manufactures compete with State owned manufacturing who have as one goal to undermine the US economy??

You have failed to explain how the US can compete with nations who have such practices.

 

[KenH]

Why you think the US ending tariffs while paying tariffs to foreign countries is a good thing is beyond me.

So because other countries harm their economy and their citizens through tariffs, you want the U.S. government to harm the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens through tariffs. Not a pro-U.S. position you have there, Jon.

 

[KenH]

If you like those other countries so much, if they are your solution, then wouldn't it make more sence to live there instead of trying to lower the standard of living here?

You are the one screaming to lower the standard of living of working-class families in the U.S. through the hyper-tariffs policies you are advocating.

 

[KenH]

exploration of workers

It's "exploitation", not "exploration".

 

[KenH]

I just disagree with you that we need to stop imposing tariffs on imports while paying tariffs on exports

You want to harm the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens through tariffs because other countries harm their economies and citizens through tariffs.

Rather a sadistic economic position you are advocating, Jon.

 

[KenH]

or that we should abandon US manufacturing.

Again, you are hyper-focused on one area of a much larger economy, and you seem quite willing to crush the rest of that economy for the subsidized benefit of just one area of it.

 

[KenH]

Your idea works only in a world that does not exist.

Not true. You seem bent on imposing more costs on working-class Americans to benefit the rich and big government.

 

[KenH]

I will not back down from being pro-free trade, pro-free markets, pro-limited government, Jon. I believe that such are best for the United States and for its citizens, especially the working-class.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thread closed at request of OP