Except for strategic industries that are essential to national defense and which need to be protected (although it can be a slippery slope), if a country wants to dump products into another country, it is doing it at its own cost and peril. By selling for less than the cost of production, it may be boosting that particular industry, but destroying everything else within itself. For example, if XX wants to sell steel to the US for half of its own production cost (assuming those costs are comparable to world-wide costs), the smart thing to do for US businesses would be to buy all they can, increase the price by 25% and re-sell to the rest of the world. Thus, if country XX wants to subsidize the entire world with cheap steel, great! The world will benefit, the US businesses most of all, and XX will be bankrupt and learn its lesson. The free market has amazing tools to deal with dishonesty and bad behavior.

Not "every" country. I've lived in China and their protectionist trade policies are working very well for them.

"The price of opportunity lost, although difficult to measure, must be taken into account." Indeed, how does one really measure the loss or decimation of entire US industries due to idiotic trade policies that allowed foreign companies, in collusion with their governments, to get away with targeting those industries?

Not assuming. I've lived in China and their protectionist trade policies are working very well for them. I suppose it will backfire when they are done sucking as much wealth as is possible out of their trading "partners" OR when their trading partners get tired of being screwed and finally do something about it.

As a second thought, your example of Saudi Arabia is a great example of how a trade tariff could act as a method of collecting reparations as well. Assign a value to the collective damages and impose a punitive tariff rate of an additional 20% (or some other arbitrary number) on that country's services until the reparations have been paid in full.

A credit rating would be very similar to what I am proposing, but I hesitate about relying on such too much for the simple expedient of too much influence being placed on a particular agency. If a simple set of guidelines is set forth, I don't know why one would need the additional scrutiny of an agency or bureau (or even a private institution). If the State Department wanted to keep some kind of informal assessment, I would see that wholly in line with its function and Constitutional operation as it would then be advising both the Executive and Legislative branches on potential policy matters. For example, they could be called to testify before a Senate panel weighing a proposed trade treaty. But there must be also a punitive measure of some kind so that actions which betray free-market and free-government principles aren't merely lip service. For this, I view tariffs as a quite realistic approach.

There is an interesting question as to how to impose tariffs on countries based on how much these countries cost the homeland. Saudi Arabia is a terrific example. The United States purchases petrochemicals from that nation in order to propel it's economic aspirations. At the same time, some Saudi policies may have enabled terrorist acts against the United States. Terrorist acts can range from immediate destruction of life and property to cultural denigration. Put a price on the cultural vacuum left after 9/11 and tell me does this cost justify continuing to do business with that nation. In this instance, one might advocate a stringent tariff on Saudi goods and services. Or one might advocate free enterprise while developing a campaign against the culpable elements within the regime.

One proposal is: We have a credit rating for nations, and yet we have no quantifiable risk (at least in public) of that nation's likelihood to inflict damage on US civilians, their liberty, or their property. Perhaps a market-based rating of a nation's respect of man's rights could assist in developing a plan as to how to approach trade with that nation. Just thinking aloud.

Just a note, but telling person to "refer to comment below" is a bad idea because the ratings for the individual responses may change moving your comment to be "above" this one. It is always better practice to respond in full - even if that means cut-and-paste. Also, it is rare when a response to one person's post can be recited verbatim as a response to another. I read both of your responses "below" and fail to see the relevance to my proposal.

agree

I agree with what you have said, but correct the last sentence to read, "at the expense of the nation and, ultimately, the individual".

See my comment below regarding free-market ratings based on respect for and enforcement of Objective rights.

Historically, tariffs very imposed as a form of revenue for the government. Issues of other countries are not the reason for the tariff. The US Constitution specifically enables Congress to enact and collect tariffs from any and all other nations as a form of revenue, not punishment. Tariffs have been used as a form of sanctions, most often as retribution for other countries' tariffs, but that, along with alleged human rights violations, is extra-Constitutional. But the main point that I am making is that tariffs hurt both countries. They provide the necessary income to the government, but are used to excess in order to satisfy the insatiable desire of the government for more money, as well as to protect some crony group that is paying off the legislators. But always at the expense of the consumer and, ultimately, the nation.

" "unilateral disarmament" would work just fine if the competitor or potential adversary is of like mind"
You're assuming the other side's weapon, in this case trade barriers, helps them. I'm saying the weapon backfires and actually hurts the side wielding it.

Hello rbroberg,
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
The truth is that the state (government) employs the worst offenders and purveyors of this philosophy.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Correct. The State Department is the authorized body within the Executive Branch for dealing with foreign nations, but ultimately the agreement would amount to a treaty and have to be approved by a Senate vote. I would advocate that flat tariffs be the starting point, but that there automatically be tacked on additional percentages for each major divergence from a capitalist economy and representative government.

Example: Australia might get a 5% tariff (the lowest available - whatever it might be) for having the most conforming national interests. Saudi Arabia would have the 5% tariff, then an additional 3% for having a non-representative government and maybe another 2% for a repressive economy (1% for being repressive to women and another 1% for cronyism) for a total tariff of 10%. China would be very similar or even more heavily tariffed. Apply ad nauseum to the rest of the world.

Governments who adopted representative government would automatically qualify for re-evaluation, as would those which adopt more egalitarian policies. Tariffs would also be used as punitive measures as a precursor to sanctions: we could hit Cuba with a 50% tariff, and Syria with a 100% tariff. States which engaged in open hostilities or hostile actions against US forces would trigger automatic provisions with higher tariffs, say 50% in the event of a surveillance plane being forced down and its crew held hostage for six weeks.

There would be very little need for posturing and diplomacy would be pretty prescribed, with words being downplayed and actions being the key indicators.

In every country that the government, for all the good reasons, imposes tariffs and taxes on imports, the standard of living is lower, the consumer pays more and the industry, overall, suffers. A specific industry that is protected by tariffs may be temporarily propped up, but at the expense of disposable income that would have been spent on other industries within the country. The price of opportunity lost, although difficult to measure, must be taken into account. And the fact that the tariff or tax money goes to the government, which wastes it destructively, is yet another reason against the tariffs. I would refer you to Milton Friedman for his unequaled explanation of tariffs, even in the face of countries that are dumping and not playing "fair."

There is an interesting question as to how to impose tariffs on countries based on how much these countries cost the homeland. Saudi Arabia is a terrific example. The United States purchases petrochemicals from that nation in order to propel it's economic aspirations. At the same time, some Saudi policies may have enabled terrorist acts against the United States. Terrorist acts can range from immediate destruction of life and property to cultural denigration. Put a price on the cultural vacuum left after 9/11 and tell me does this cost justify continuing to do business with that nation. In this instance, one might advocate a stringent tariff on Saudi goods and services. Or one might advocate free enterprise while developing a campaign against the culpable elements within the regime.

One proposal is: We have a credit rating for nations, and yet we have no quantifiable risk (at least in public) of that nation's likelihood to inflict damage on US civilians, their liberty, or their property. Perhaps a market-based rating of a nation's respect of man's rights could assist in developing a plan as to how to approach trade with that nation. Just thinking aloud.

The intention is to penalize countries for their human rights deficiencies. However, the sovereign government is sovereign over the actions occurring within it's domain. In our example, the United States government does not exercise power over Chinese citizens. Further, if people were enslaved there, then these people would not properly be considered citizens. There can be no three fifths compromise. Either the respective governments grant their citizens their due rights, or they do not. As such, there is no legitimate argument for improving human rights without properly defining man's right to life, liberty, and his property. Without these basic rights, a human rights agenda will inevitably fail to coalesce a meaningful dialogue. When men do not act on right, but by privilege, then we are arguing from a pragmatist stance and not from a sound foundation.

So your suggestion is to leverage tariffs on other countries. Based on your comment regarding MFN, I assume you grant reduced tariffs to nations based on the degree of freedom granted to their markets. Which begs the question as to who within the government could make such a decision. If I am mistaken and you propose a flat tariff, then please correct me.

I would support ending all corporate and personal income taxes and switching to tariffs as a means for government income if it were possible. That was the way the original Constitution was set up and I believe that if we went back to it we'd have not only a more sound economy and smaller government (because they couldn't afford to pay for all the welfare programs and other nonsense), but we'd also have more economic leverage internationally. We should never have given China MFN (Most-Favored Nation) status until they completely converted to a market economy because that gives them tremendous economic leverage they never should have had.

"...lower American productivity...", you're right, unemployed Americans don't produce much. "...higher consumer costs..." keep in mind to the unemployed and those who can only find a low paying job, even cheap Chinese goods are expensive.

Let me be clear here, as you should have been able to see from my posts in this thread, I'm only advocating protectionist policies as a countermeasure against countries that are not dealing honestly with us. In no way do I advocate protectionism so American workers can sit on their asses most of the day producing nothing and still expecting to keep their jobs.

You are welcome to turn to Trump or any other socialist for protectionist policies that will invariably result in lower American productivity and higher consumer costs, but with an appearance of the government doing something about it.

The two issues (idiotic foreign trade policy and idiotic domestic policy) are working together with the same result.

Second point first. If you actually read my post you would have seen the line: "...a domestic policy that taxes and regulates US businesses into the dirt it should be no mystery as to why businesses (jobs) are leaving the country..." Your cute story of Uncle Joe and the frog pond is more colorful but says the same thing.

Your first point illustration of you selling goods for half of what it takes to make them, presumably to drive the competition out of business after which you could charge any price you want, would lead to your economic demise unless you had a huge wealth reserve to keep you in business until the goal of crushing the competition is reached. In the real foreign trade economic world this is called dumping and has been successfully practiced, especially pioneered by the Japanese in virtually destroying American consumer electronics industry and steel. Neither industry has recovered on our shores. There are others, too, such as textiles and tool machinery, but no need to name them all (side note: the unemployment and welfare roles start to fill up with this activity causing a host of other problems). The wealth reserve is provided by the foreign government for a given industry to be targeted by their businesses.

Complete lessons in reading comprehension and real world economics in a few sentences. Take from it what you want.

I would say "unilateral disarmament" would work just fine if the competitor or potential adversary is of like mind and sees the wisdom in such a move and follows suit. However, an aggressive predator would only salivate at the prospect of eating you for lunch and "unilateral disarmament" might be all that is required to put you in the oven.

"a "no protectionism" stance as long as the trading partners (or shall I say adversaries) do not."
You're saying we cannot unilaterally disarm. We cannot allow our citizens to buy foreign goods tariff-free if they won't allow their citizens to buy American goods tariff-free. This would make sense if protectionism worked. I think it does not work. I think Americans will only willing give their money to foreigners (or anyone) if the other party provides something of more value to them. Foreign gov'ts aren't doing their people any favors by keeping them from buying goods and services from us.

The trade deficit is a real problem, but it's a symptom of the fiscal deficit. Treating the symptom won't help. The fiscal deficit is unsustainable. Only Gary Johnson has warned specifically that fiscal deficit could turn into a monetary crisis in the near future.