Thanks. I really enjoyed this thread and while many do not agree, I like how everyone is civil in their posts. This is mostly true for this board overall and I think why it is ongoing from its original purpose of discussing the Atlas Trilogy.

Well said.

Here is what I think is the bottom line is, and perhaps everyone is to PC to say it out loud: There is no economy in the world, at present, that can survive the loss of access to the US market. The US can, if it has to, be completely independent of any market in any other country in the world. There would be some but relatively little pain in doing so. Would we be better off with free world trade? Of course. The moral question is whether or not we should use our power to subdue other economies or to construct a platform for everyone to contribute, to the best of their ability with everyone being better off.

"People (and nations) rarely attempt to apply physical force to others when they are in a strong economical position because they have the most to lose. Nations that are economically weak are that way because they limit their citizens productivity by force. Those you named are great examples. There is a fundamental rule of human nature- if you have something, someone will take it from you if you let them. Strong or weak, nations and people will take what they can, unless, there is the ethical basis of individual rights, property rights, see above. "

Well said!

"So you punish the bad government claiming it will not harm the people."

If - as you claim - it is not my responsibility to care about what happens to other people or other governments, then this becomes irrelevant, does it not? Whether or not I affect someone else matters not at all if I am only looking out for my own short-term benefit.

The whole argument is that I do care. I care about my own benefit and recognize that those who do the same can be jointly engaged so that both of us benefit even more in aggregate than we would separately. That is the entire basis for trade. I have no wish to live a subsistence life of farming my own products and living solely off my own meager efforts. I'm not that great a farmer. I want to specialize and become relatively more productive in one area so that I can take advantage of someone else's specialized production in another and we can both be better off.

I would also further offer that we must take great care to separate temporary inconvenience from actual long-term harm. We can not look only at one side of the ledger sheet: that of temporarily being unable to obtain certain goods at a given price instead of a higher one from another supplier. The other side matters because you are encouraging free and open, mutually-beneficial trade at a later juncture and for a greater duration - which results in both sides (both partners) being better off. The question is whether one sacrifices a long-term business relationship (over the course of which both parties might benefit to great degree by measured, continuous trade) for the sake of a single deal - while encouraging the very dissolution of that profitable arrangement. The subsidized economy can collapse at any moment (and must eventually). Only the truly self-sufficient can operate in perpetuity.

Who really benefits from the nation which subsidizes its production? Government looters and their corporate cronies. Who pays? Their own citizens in the form of redirected taxes. Tariffs on such countries simply say "we refuse to be a part of your government looting you through our actions."

Is it moral signalling? Absolutely! And we should absolutely be engaged in promoting the highest morals in everyone we deal with. We should absolutely be living according to our beliefs and our actions should sound as loudly as clarion trumpets! Those who claim that moral signalling is a negative are those who have no morals of their own they wish to advertise. They seek only to pull down, not to build.

A question: accepting this, are we not in effect encouraging bad behavior by enabling it if we do not refuse to participate? I submit that Galt refused to be a part of the machine, and so should we. The main criticism of Dagny throughout the book was her continued naivete that if she worked from within the system that she could help fix it. As we can not truly insulate ourselves by retreating to Atlantis, all we can do is to establish barriers to those who seek to try to live to take advantage of others. Tariffs in my mind are one such effective barrier.

"There is no obligation or responsibility to serve your trading partners."

See my previous remarks. You can not have trade without serving the needs of one's trading partner and being recompensed for that service. I would caution against the mistake of confusing trade with altruism.

Second para- yes quite likely that is what happens. So you punish the bad government claiming it will not harm the people. It will, and you also harm yourself. The counter action is not pragmatic in that it helps no one. ('pragmatic' whoops!)
Worse, the action assumes a right to act - virtue signalling - moral posturing, justified by moral or religious or racial superiority that you know what is best for them and have some right to impose what you want.

In trade, the focus should always be on the long-term prosperity of both partners.
See 'the oath'. (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand)
There is no obligation or responsibility to serve your trading partners. You may as an individual, not a government, give them something to help them, they will take it. Governments, like people, decay under long term secure charity.
You can assure jobs for them, but not work from them. You can guarantee food delivery, but not their agricultural production.

People (and nations) rarely attempt to apply physical force to others when they are in a strong economical position because they have the most to lose.
Nations that are economically weak are that way because they limit their citizens productivity by force. Those you named are great examples.
There is a fundamental rule of human nature- if you have something, someone will take it from you if you let them. Strong or weak, nations and people will take what they can, unless, there is the ethical basis of individual rights, property rights, see above.

The correct policy is- give nothing, take nothing, impose no penalties when they make it hard to buy your stuff (schoolyard he-hit-me-first), apply self-discipline in lecturing, only engage in voluntary trade value-for-value.

"the total wealth is reduced in the country using them by taking from taxpayers and all buyers and giving to those in the industry protected."

While this may be true, the argument you present omits the reality on the other side of the coin: that the producers in the exporting nation are being artificially propped up and subsidized by their nations' governmental programs (ie taxes on their own people) rather than operating based on true market-based advantages such as superior technology or production techniques. The tariffs are actually being applied against the trading nation's government as a counterweight to that government's market interference.

"The ethical/moral position is clear, do not hurt your own nation to punish another for having policies which are bad for them."

Your position here would be sound except for the evaluation that one is harming one's own nation by refusing to do unfettered business with a self-destructive nation. In trade, the focus should always be on the long-term prosperity of both partners. You do no good to either side in the long term by supporting self-destructive policies. (This same principle applies to drug addicts and other individual behaviors.) Businesses expend tremendous energy (i.e. profit) trying to adapt to changing circumstances. In many cases, the uncertainty of those changing circumstances precludes business at all - as we saw from the previous President's economic policies. The best environment for business is where the rules are set and businesses can rely on them to be what they are for years at a time. The focus should be on longevity within a trade agreement, not the one-off blips.

"Exceptions when- there are physical threats to your citizens or guns aimed at you, and as part of some negotiation strategy tho' I doubt that will work."

While we would certainly be wise to note the physical threats from competing nations, I would suggest that the causality is reversed. The application of physical force is usually a result of economic instability - not the other way around. People (and nations) rarely attempt to apply physical force to others when they are in a strong economical position because they have the most to lose. Sun Tzu touches upon several aspects of this in his work The Art of War. If one wants contemporary examples, one can look at North Korea or Iran, the Axis nations during WW II, or a variety of others.

blarman you write well.
But, you see tariffs as they as promoted. Try viewing from actual results, if not first principles.
The claim is that they spread wealth, this is often true, the total wealth is reduced in the country using them by taking from taxpayers and all buyers and giving to those in the industry protected. This is desirable to a socialist, unacceptable to an Objectivist, a fence sitter could say- maybe there are some benefits so 'show me'.

The ethical/moral position is clear, do not hurt your own nation to punish another for having policies which are bad for them. If they put an umpteen percent tariff on your butter, take no action it is mainly their loss, you lose a bit from that but you will lose again from a tariff on their timber.
Exceptions when- there are physical threats to your citizens or guns aimed at you, and as part of some negotiation strategy tho' I doubt that will work.

The simplistic approach is to say "eliminate all tariffs". The problem is that that approach only works when both sides have free economies. Many of Canada's industries are subsidized by government. The forestry industry has long been the poster child of this as Canada's logging industry depends heavily on US demand - much of which is artificially created by our own environmentalist-backed laws (which drive UP the price of logging in the United States on public lands).

I fully support free economic systems, but your best leverage over your neighbor's economy is your trade policy. To simply say "well, we don't care what you do to undermine our economy and production, we're going to buy your cheap goods!" is long-term economic suicide. It's why I think Most-Favored Nation trade status should never have been extended to China - and should be revoked at the first possible opportunity.

I would also point out that the initial funding for the US Federal Government was set up by the Founding Fathers to be based on tariffs - not on personal or corporate income taxes. Why would you wish to extend a freedom from taxation to non-Citizens while taxing your own? That was precisely why the Boston Tea Party occurred: because the colonists were being forced to pay taxes even others of their own nation weren't subject to!

Ultimately, very few wars are won by ideology. Most are won by resource acquisition and use. WW II is a classic example. Germany's military campaign didn't really begin to suffer until the British began bombing their centers of production. Russia only held out as long as it did because the UK was running materials and supplies to them in the middle years of the war (after Hitler declared war on Russia). Japan's entire war strategy depended on them capturing and holding vital resource production centers in East Asia and once those were gone, they quickly folded. The US had neither superior infantry weapons nor tanks for the duration of the war, and superior aircraft only near the end. But what they didn't have in technical superiority they made up for in numbers.

One can also look at Napoleon's march on Russia. Napoleon was an unrivaled general for his time, but his greatest defeat was not because of superior manpower, but losses to his army from starvation and disease.

In short, I support tariffs on nations which do not have free markets - which is pretty much all of them. Give me a capitalist nation (the only one which is even close is Australia or perhaps Singapore - certainly not Canada) and you can make the argument to remove tariffs. For all others, I say run up the import tariffs until they change their own governments and economies and free them.

👎 You can do better than this.

As William Shipley noted, your negotiating tactics have to be credible to have any real effect on negotiations. Trump didn't impose tariffs on a whim. He had stated that unless satisfactory progress was made for trade deals on NAFTA and the EU, he would impose tariffs. The other side apparently thought he was bluffing, and dragged out negotiations to see if he was serious. In order to maintain his credibility, he had to take the action he had warned that he would.

The tariff action was also necessary to make North Korea recognize the President's promise to walk away from their negotiations is real. They already had learned he was serious when he responded to their angry bluster by calling off the summit. They very quickly backed off and made extra effort to get things back on track. Had he not followed up on his tariff promise, the door to evasive negotiating would have once again been open to them.

Both the tariff declaration and the credibility issue with respect to North Korea are intended to be a message to Iran. The U.S. is leaving the nuclear agreement, and will reimpose sanctions against Iran to reduce their revenue flow. They need to know they can depend that will happen.

Trump is building a consistent pattern of credibility with respect to foreign policy, aside from his bluster at opposition or over the top praise when someone does what he wants. Media statements that he is unpredictable and erratic shows that they apparently haven't been paying attention.

The comparison with Obama's drone strikes is off base, because he really did hope that increased use of those weapons would reduce the severity of radical Islamic violence. The result, had he been successful, would in fact have reduced the need to continue them. Obama also believed, as does anyone with socialist leanings, that increased taxes, properly imposed, will benefit society. I doubt he believed that hoped for GDP increase would lead to future reductions in taxes, so as you said, any such claims would be ludicrous.

Exactly. I just go through the walk-away and its repercussions in my mind so I don't fool myself saying, "sure, I could walk away," but because I'm emotionally married to a certain outcome.

I agree it can't be with a threatening heart. You honestly want a deal that works for everyone. There will always be another deal for both parties, so there's nothing mean-spirited about not doing it.

"while not essential "
That's the key. When it's essential, you... well actually essential to me, I get into trouble. I have no poker face whatsoever.

While walking away is always a possibility, the other case is that you show you are willing to walk away and the other side will give you a concession to keep it from happening. You have to be credible, not just threatening.

I am currently negotiating a deal that while not essential would be quite nice for my company. The contract negotiator wanted something I wasn't willing to concede. I was firm, if they don't accept our position we are, in fact, walking away. However I don't really want to do so. We'll see, signs are that they'll withdraw their request.

"It stops being a good thing the minute someone starts to dictate economic policy to the United States because they own a significant-enough chunk of American land."
The actual problem is "economic policy" (i.e. gov't powers to use force). Maybe a secondary problem is the gov't's levers of power being controlled by those who own a lot of property. The solution is not to use gov't force to steer property ownership into the hands of those who will use the levers of power to steer the economy benignly. The actual problem is gov't power over the economy. If that doesn't exist, we leave people alone to own whatever they can acquire in honest trades.

"Have you ever been part of a negotiating team for commercial or government purposes?"
Of course, but that has nothing to do with complicated just-so stories that say the person is engineering Seldon crisises to get to the opposite of what he actually does. I don't know if it's special pleading or shifting the burden, but it's certainly a fallacy if I start with the idea that President Obama wanted to reduce drone strikes and taxes but he did the opposite because he was giving into interest groups that wanted them now to engineer a future crisis where they'll be drastically reduced. That's just making stuff up.

"demonstrating your willingness to walk away."
Yes. In those situations I mentally imagine myself walking away and doing all the immediate steps so I don't have a psychological hangup. I know exactly how the walk-away will unfold. It's not about being blustery or anything like that. It's to avoid getting a fever to get a deal done. I've seen people get an eagerness, not even for a particular deal, but just for it to be at a conclusion. But I think "when in doubt don't." There will always be another deal.. another project, business to partner with, job, car, piece of real estate, or whatever.

Note that this has nothing to do with the bizarre machinations that people attribute to President Trump. I suspect he knows more about doing deals, not just walking away but also how to address objections close the deal, than I do. This is completely different from doing something like tripping the deficit or supporting increased spending and government powers to get some unstated future goal to do the opposite.

OK, 'when I use a word .. ..'
'Pragmatism' as a philosophy means short term expediency, how politicians make decisions.
As I used the word with a small 'p', it means think it thru. I should find a better word.

"Free trade means only that you can exchange or not without being coerced in the exchange."

Correct. That is, coerced into buying a specific product as well as coerced into not buying a specific product.

Suppose there is completely free trade, as say when two people decide to trade, say money for some goods or services. I want some of his donuts and can make them at a higher cost than he can. So he won't want my donuts but I can buy his and sell fewer donuts and save money by not having to produce as many higher priced donuts and can use the extra money to buy or produce something that others may want.
My higher cost of production is like a tariff to him and so buys fewer of my donuts. It doesn't matter whether the higher cost is due to taxing or due to higher production costs. Free trade does not mean so called fair trade. One decides what is worth more, the money or the goods or services.
Same nonsense with balance of trade. If reduced to the simplest situation, do you expect that when you buy something from say the next town you should have the money back from those of that town by buying something from you.
Free trade means only that you can exchange or not without being coerced in the exchange.

Another alternative response would be that USS sees that there is only a 5% gap and finds ways to reduce prices, increase efficiency to make it up. A 25% gap is harder to fill.

Yeah, coaldigger, that was some time ago. "Top of the Triangle" sounds familiar, but I really don't remember for sure which building I was in at that time. I'm not from there and I didn't do the driving. The steel mill we set up in was the tin plate line in Weirton Steel in Weirton, WV. During my time there the guys gave me personal tours of the whole plant. It was there that I thought every American ought to visit a steel mill just to appreciate what it takes to make steel. I was very much impressed at what is involved and the immensity of the operation. I have lots of good memories I've shared with others over the years. The last I heard, Weirton went bankrupt and got sold off. Don't know if any part of it still operates. I met lots of good folks there.

Edit: I still remember their motto: "We make cans, not can'ts!"

Interestingly, if one imposes a tax on a ton of Korean steel of 25% or higher, and a ton of steel from Gary, Indiana is 25% more expensive it is likely that US consumers will buy from Gary and be paying USS an extra 25%. If the tariff is 20%, consumers will buy from Korea, the US government will pocket the 20% from the consumer who saves 5% and USS will get nothing. How can the government flex with the ever changing prices on the market and what is the value of preserving the inefficient at the expense of our own standard of living? Being a cynic when it comes to government, I see the likelihood of the scenario where the government takes a slice and the public gets screwed.

Pragmatism is epistemological suicide where practicality of an existent is the criteria for being subsumed in a true concept. In other words, if it isn't practical, it isn't true and thus cannot be included in a concept.
Here we are in the Gulch devoted to the ideas of Ayn Rand and her Objectivism with recommendation of a philosophy antithetically opposed to Objectivism. I can see how so many here can view tariffs and duties as somehow economically acceptable.

I wouldn't listen to Mills either...he's the other side of the marxist coin and likely more responsible for a depraved, entitled, ignorant society.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/ar...


Hell, if your going to put tariffs on another countries product then it should go toward our debt.

As the original poster has by now stated, in time of open war, any asset belonging to the enemy side would be subject to nationalization and re-privatization, presumably to American citizens. But how about assets belonging to uncooperative neutrals? Does Congress then add them to a declaration of war? That takes time. With a war breaking out in this modern era of instantaneous command decisions, I don't think we'd have that kind of time to waste.