Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
    And while you are thinking about it review Hazlitt and identify the losers in any protectionest scheme. They usually come with a tariff of sorts attached which somehow always seems to raise the price of the item or service. Do you remember who loses in such a scheme?

    Usually the only winner is the government. The consumer pays more and the difference in the pre tariff price and price with tariff added is money that they do NOT spend in other stores or put to other uses.

    But no one, absolutely no one, when considering tariffs, adds up the losses to the real economy of the nation.

    Here's the formula. Amount if Colllected Tariff is ACT

    National Economy minus the ACT decreases the National Economy as a loss in the same amount But increases Government Spending by the same amount plus additional debit funds leveraged. Lose (The economy) Lose (the citizens) Win (Government minus incrfeased debt).I guess it's Loise lose lose

    For a tariff to be useful there must be a valid reason other than the cost of some Congressionals vote buying scheme.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago
      Under the original Constitution, tariffs (import taxes) were the only acceptable taxation method. I'm not going to argue and say that there is a tax system that doesn't detrimentally affect the economy. Taxes are a necessary evil. But I'd go back to tariffs in a heartbeat if it meant eliminating income taxes and corporate taxes and all the governmental bloat that goes along with it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
        Correct but it would probably talke about three thousand percent on imports to make a dent these days. The end user consumption tax stood a chance but with the massive crushing debt load the nation carries those figures would have to be reworked.

        Still end user puts control in the hands of citizens and takes it away from the government's fascist income tax.

        Even the cycle of economic repression tool of debt repudiation can only do so much since it can only target those who a. can't fight back or b. are not likely loan sources for more spending.

        Eventually complete bankrupty will result when taxes equal 100 percent of income just to pay the debt load and the T Bills are repudiated leaving the government with nothing but conrfiscation of assets.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago
          I don't deny that our circumstances are dire. We've elected representatives for far too long who have chosen a populist platform of buying votes and which will come crashing down - to the ruin of all. My only hope is that my children will rise from the ashes and start anew with the correct principles.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GramofAncapisce 7 years, 8 months ago
        @Blarman: Tariffs and taxes are the same principle, only applied to a different size and demographic of victims, however, both effect all market participants over a large enough period of time.

        I would only disagree with you on one point, and challenge your notion that taxes are necessary. They aren't, never have been, but they have been sold to us as such... because government is not a requisite.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago
          You are somewhat correct in that there are largely semantic differences between taxes and tariffs. A tax gets levied on one's own citizens while a tariff is on someone else's. And I don't deny that there are market effects to both.

          However, there can be no law without government and enforcement of penalties for abrogation of the law. Does that mean that we must accept the overbearance and tyranny which has crept into our government? Not at all. But to claim there is no need for government... You are welcome to attempt to make your case, however.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 8 months ago
            How can a tax on an import not harm the citizens? If the tariff or duty is paid to the government along with the base price of a good, how can that not harm the citizen who purchases the good? He will have less money to buy elsewhere if the same good is not available as a substitute for the foreign good. If the tariff is on an essential good, then the lack of the tariff money will overall decrease the amount of money available for some other goods, including labor, and thus decrease the living standards for some citizens and perhaps all.
            The idea of 'us versus them' as with your "A tax gets levied on one's own citizens while a tariff is on someone else's" is disgusting. The cause of the desire for tariffs comes from much too high taxes on the citizens, including business organizations, of a country which give reasons to take business elsewhere. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, meaning you cannot have your economy and destroy it with taxation too.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago
              "The idea of 'us versus them' as with your "A tax gets levied on one's own citizens while a tariff is on someone else's" is disgusting."

              It might help instead of getting outraged to actually read my comments. From my comments: "I don't deny that there are market effects to both."

              The practicality of the matter is that you don't have a functioning government without taxing someone. The real problem people have with taxes is that in general, they don't provide value for general services because they are spent on things that only benefit a few people. There are some services, however, that do make sense to be paid for and administered on a national scale rather than an individual or local scale. For those services - which should be a very limited and discreet list - there has to be some way to pay for them.

              There is no tax that isn't going to have a detrimental effect to some degree. That's a given. The point is to try to make that as small as possible of an impact. The arguments to be made in favor of trade tariffs rather than personal income taxes are the following:
              1) it's how the Constitution was originally set up. I trust the Founding Fathers much more than I trust our current politicians.
              2) if trade tariffs are a nation's only source of revenue for government spending, they will HAVE to pay attention to the state of the economy - both national and international - to maintain their revenue flow.
              3) eliminating the personal and corporate income taxes will promote free speech (no more tax-exempt status to worry about)
              4) eliminating the corporate taxes eliminate effectively a double-tax that the corporations really don't pay anyway. Consumers pay them in the price of more expensive goods and services
              5) eliminating corporate income taxes (the US' are the highest in the industrialized world) will make the US more competitive globally
              6) eliminating the personal income tax would very easily allow consumers to pay the slightly increased costs of imported goods resulting from the tariffs
              7) there are many nations who export to us on whom we excise no tariffs, yet despite agreements with them they still tariff our goods. I am in favor of leveling the playing field
              8) re-instating tariffs would mean rejecting the WTO and put a severe dent in the power of the UN
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 8 months ago
                But that is not what is being asked for in tariffs. The asked for tariffs are presented to harm other countries which can produce at lower cost than can the USA. The idea is not to get more revenue but rather to harm someone by reducing their sales. If that is not true, there is no reason for a tariff. There is no way that other taxes would be reduced or would the number of jobs increase since unemployed labor are assumed to have been available but not desirable for employment by business. Look for some kind of government interference in the economy which tariffs will not fix. Protectionism is bad regardless of it having been placed into the Constitution.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
                  OK do the math. I'll use the classic example. I want to buy a shirt. It's $20 at my local store in Wyoming plus sales tax made from US Cotton, harvested spun into cloth, dyed, ,cut into patterns and sewn complete with label in Alabama then shipped.

                  The storeowner discovers he can buy cheaper but still the same quality shirts and sell them for $10.00 plus sales tax for the same profit margin and that includes shipping from India. So at five percent sales tax $21 or $10.50. Right away you see the government loses .50 cents. Break my heart I'm paying with after income tax earnings so do I care?

                  Alabama a heavy traditional union state objects and calls the guy in DC they send all those laundered Davis Bacon monies to and say, "Raise the import duty add a tariff to at least make it equal and we'll do a buy America campaign. Bingo $10.00 tariff added

                  Now either equal quality shirt will cost me $21.00. The government though has now gained $10.00 per shirt the amount of the tariff and regained it's lost fifty cents. Union labor gets to keep spinning, dyeing and stitching. Teamsters make out either way.

                  Who loses? You might say I do because I have to pay the extra $10.50 cents which is pure tax. But there is an addiitonal loss everone forgets about. That extra $10 could have put gas in my car, food on the table, paid my property tax, bought a second shirt, become my kids allowance or been sent to Sally Strothers. But it wasn't.

                  That extra $10.00 went to the government but did zip all nada goose egg for the other people I mentioned. Nationwide the amount of the tariff ends up as a hidden tax and a loss for the there business concerns.

                  The story gets worse and it's true tariffs were the original only way to fund government but not any more so it doesn't count in the story. Now they have 57 other taxes

                  Anytime you hear one of these economic stories see if you can figure out cui bono who profits and cui no bono who does not profit.

                  Damn sure your savings account for the kids college, the daughters wedding and your retirement is sucking hind tit.

                  Thanks to Hazlitt and Economics In One Lesson. It's always a case of KISS Keep It Simple Stupid the KISS principle coupled with TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.

                  Someone somewhere somehow always pays the cost of whatever you thought was free.

                  Nowadays there is third way. Buy five shirts for Five dollars from Amazon. at a price of one dollar each and four dollars shipping. There's your ten dollars and the tariff is paid on the cost of $5.00 not on the shipping.

                  KISS and TANSTAAFL. Works every time. The Hazlitt book. Best economics class you'll ever attend.

                  What was the exttra dollar for? Import duty and local taxes in some cases.

                  It's businesses like Amazon that are keeping the economy going and keeping dollars in your pocket And now you know why the Chinese like to loan us money. We're their best customer.

                  Our employees? Look at Dollar Stores for a start. Local version of Amazon. Walmart. Everything at the lowest possible price. And jobs for Grandpa and Grandma who just had a huge chunk of their reitirement wiped out by State Economics. As for the daughters wedding. Pay her a thousand to elope it's a sure fire money making proposition.







                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 8 months ago
      I buy a lot of stuff from China in order to pay about 1/3 of what it would cost to buy the same items here in the USA. This allows us to sell to our USA customers at a cheaper price. If a tariff of 40% is passed on items from china, we would have to tack that onto our prices. 40% tariff would not result in bringing the jobs back to the USA, as it would be still cheaper to buy from China. So the government gets the tariff, and the customers here pay for it.

      The alternative is to automate here, and stop buying from china. Still, jobs would not come back to the USA, because they would be replaced by robots.

      So what does Hildebeast want to do? Increase the minimum wage here and put american workers at a distinct disadvantage. Our small company would either go out of business, automate, or cut employment and work the existing people harder.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 8 months ago
    Never liked tariffs but never considered the effects of tariffs on other users...makes sense.

    I've always faulted the Unions for the high cost of labor...I always thought that the steel industry would probably pay workers a fair wage, it's a dangerous job. The union wages now pay the union itself...money the union workers would of had to begin with with out union dues...(just like everything else some or most of the cost is passed on)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      Three main parts to the Socialist System. Big Government Big Business and Labor Leaders. One need look no further to find the neo aristocracy and the Establishment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 7 years, 8 months ago
    tariffs are like boycotts ... I am boycotting AARP for
    their support of obamacare, for example. . no tariff,
    just no support. . they don't feel my tiny effort, but
    there are more who feel the same. . there are other
    businesses on my list, but AARP is the biggie. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      Thats funny AARP is nothing more than a front from an insruance operation. They must have politicked there way into one of the early pay off parts before ACA went broke.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
    What they did was dump it right back in the lap of the Attorney General who tied to dodge the responsibility and at the same time deny Lynch the use of the only out's available no matter how questionable. What's needed now is the laweryer for that Navy Reservist they just hung ont he same charges to get an equal opportunity lawyer to file for dismissal using the Clinton Exception .If you can find an honest lawyer without an ACLU Card and i'm not to sure about the ethics of the ABA. Of course that would mean an honest judge who wasn't owned by Soros.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 8 months ago
    Didn't any of these stupes take Economics 101?
    Holy crap, don't they realize that tariffs on imports are just another form of taxes on the citizens by making them pay higher prices? Hey out there -- that's not the way you do it. If you don't want to study economics, then at least read up on history.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      Sure There are three tiypes Socialist Economics, Progressive Economics and State Economics. The last one is the same as prefacing Socialist and Progressive with the words National or International.Iii believe there is a full panapoly of 101's 307's and 418's but not one 911 in the bunch.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 8 months ago
        Not one 911? Not even a Lockerby.
        I am quickly arriving at the point where I no longer have the words to express my outrage at the idiocy that calls itself our government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo