12

For The Last Time, POLITICIANS DON'T CREATE JOBS

Posted by rbroberg 5 years, 3 months ago to Politics
62 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In fact, politicians don't properly create! The goal of a proper government is reactive, not proactive! This means we seek to end force and fraud perpetrated against citizens. All we "create" is a proper system by which courts, police, and military can properly practice and exercise objective law. As Rand said, "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

In support of a recent post in the Gulch, the DT supporters now are speaking of tariffs as a necessary evil to protect against Chinese goods made on low wages and poor environmental controls. Wow. So now we are telling a communist nation that they are not controlled enough?? This is bad news.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by khalling 5 years, 3 months ago
    tariffs against the chinese will just mean the consumer in the US will pay significantly more for goods. Nobody ever focuses on the right things. The removal of Sarbanes Oxley, the removal of many onerous regulations which affect small business and protect BigBusiness.
    The govt itself notes that 93% of all net new jobs are created through small business. A substantial percentage of those are based in technology.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      Tariffs against buying items from China will simply add to our costs (75% of our raw materials and subassemblies are bought from china in order to stay in business- making these items in the USA is already prohibitively expensive). When our costs go up, our prices will have to go up, and whats left of our customers will have to foot the increased tax bills- the proceeds of which will just go to the government and therefore will be wasted on "programs". Competition from the chinese manufacturers of finished goods will also rise, meaning that there will no longer be the lower prices we currently enjoy. The economy will shrink as people have less money to spend.

      There isnt much difference in the politicians after all. They ALL want more money for the government whether its done by direct taxes, or indirect taxes like import duties.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 3 months ago
    They're saying we need to protect people by keeping apart people who want to trade. Each party has something the other wants, but gov't is in there to protect them for exchanging what they have for what they want.
    "necessary evil to protect against Chinese goods made on low wages "
    Then we really need to protect against goods machines make for no wages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 3 months ago
      Machines are the only way we remain competitive with countries whose wages are far lower than US wages for like jobs. Factor in the saving from the absence of environmental regulation in many countries and wages and you have to ask how much more we're willing to pay for something just so UAW or UFCW or the Teamsters can pull $20 for every worker.

      Detroit.

      Automation is our only answer if we intend to be a full partner in the the global economy. We will sink economically until everyone else improves their standard of living.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
      I understand what you are saying, CG, but I'd like to mention that the Chinese wages aren't as low as one would think when the purchasing power of those wages is understood. Not discussing employment benefits to keep it simple, lets say a US technician gets paid $28.8k (US) per year and a Chinese tech doing the same thing gets paid $3.6k (US) per year. Wow, that Chinese guy must be starving, or so some folks would like you to think. However, if the currency and buying power of the wages are taken into account you'll see the two workers are the same well off. At the rate of 8 yuan per dollar the Chinese worker is making Y28.8k (Chinese) per year. Now consider a loaf of bread cost the US tech $2 per loaf and loaf of bread cost the Chinese worker Y2 per loaf. Not much difference. Please keep in mind my numbers are close to illustrate the point, but not exact.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 3 months ago
        I agree completely with what you wrote. I was trying to say, "if we need gov't to protect willing buyers and sellers acting in good faith from each other, then we need gov't to protect us from everything." I'm against protectionism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
          "I'm against protectionism." Amen! Me, too, CG, in a perfect world. The problem we're experiencing as far as trade is concerned in this world is the US can't maintain a "no protectionism" stance as long as the trading partners (or shall I say adversaries) do not. In fact some foreign countries, like China, are just the opposite as they aggressively pursue protectionist policies that guarantee trade between them and US is a one way street directing wealth to themselves and out of the US. The US can't let this economic bleeding continue. With a foreign trade policy designed to let this continue coupled with 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 and the economy isn't showing any decent growth (not to mention the outrageous debt). IMHO, Hillary is clueless (or doesn't give a crap unless it lines her pockets) and DT at least wants to address both of these issues. As of now I'm willing to give DT a shot at fixing these problems as well as others.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
            You are combining two separate issue together and I disagree with your assessment of both. First, tariffs. Tariffs on foreign products do not help the US, neither the industry or the consumer. To illustrate, let's say I am willing to make a product and sell it to you for one half of what it costs me. But, I refuse to buy anything that you make or sell. I may be unpleasant to deal with, but am I really hurting you? Now, let's say the government steps in and puts a 100% tariff on my product. So, now you are paying a reasonable price for my product, which is twice as much as before. Of course, you have just become happier, right? And the extra money that was charged through the tariff has gone to causes, such as welfare so that more people can continue their existence without ever working or producing anything, or has been given to Pakistan or other shitplace in the world. Meanwhile, my uncle Joe, who makes the same product as I, but less efficiently, because he lives in NY State and has to support lots of people on welfare and some frogs that need government intervention in his local pond, which makes half of his industrial area unusable, has no reason to use ncrease his efficiency, since whatever efficiency his competition has become is being erased by the tariff.

            The second point- outsourcing. One day, my uncle Joe realizes that much of his effort, time and resources is dedicated to those frogs under government protection. He has lost much of his land, because building a larger warehouse would affect the frogs' natural habitat. He needs to constantly send his employees to sensitivity trading in case they say something offensive about, or God forbid, to the frogs. He needs to pay protection money to environmental groups so that they can give his company a green sticker. And he has to contribute to the frogs's retirement plan, to be managed by the environmental group. Or, my uncle Joe thinkesh, the hell with all that and I'll buy it from China. Of course, he is a greedy, selfish capitalist and the government needs to put a tariff on his imports and an extra 50% tax on his existence. That will make an even playing field, support the middle class, soak the rich and be the right step towards social justice.

            A complete economics lesson in two paragraphs. Take from it what you want.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
                  "...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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
                    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."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
                      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?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
                        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.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 3 months ago
            "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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 3 months ago
                " "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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      I cant figure out all this macroeconomic stuff, but I know what happens in our small business. We manufacture LED lighting items. We buy 75% of our raw materials and subassemblies from china IN ORDER TO BE COMPETITIVE and keep from hiring US workers. We also hire so called illegal aliens because they work better and faster than US citizens and are willing to work for more competitive wages. Call me politically incorrect.

      Add tariffs to imported items, and automation looks better and we move along that path. There is still no desire to actually create jobs for american workers.

      Prevent the hiring of non-american workers and we look to actually move to Mexico. Make tariffs on goods made in mexico, and then we probably close the business and shrug.

      That puts the 10 workers we do have now out on the street, along with their families.

      Cut the corporate taxation and other "fees" that have been imposed, stop even talking about $15 an hour wages, or maternity leave, maybe even get rid of the current minimum wages to leave more money available to pay more highly trained american workers build the business faster.

      What Trump could do is make government "get out of the way"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 3 months ago
        Exactly. The more they build the "world economy" the more they screw it up, because there is no way to level the ground. China is cheap because they have a huge peasant workforce that works for nothing, vs the US "eagalitarian" system of unions and laws. Some business proves that they cannot treat their employees fairly but the Ford model proved it does, and other businesses today follow. The material manufacturing side is the hardest to survive because you have so many fingers raping the supply chain that it gets prohibitive to get raw materials. The only solution is removal of all restrictions and regulations and hold companies accountable for any damages they do (pollution etc). Even then, it is very hard to make this work, as responsible companies will try to do the right thing, then we have idiot companies like CBS/Paramount, who want to impose their will on everyone and screw us all. Very complicated, and subject to way too much political manipulation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          If ANYTHING will correct things for the consumer, its free COMPETITION. Governments just cant fix things and most of the time make them worse and screw over the very consumers they are telling us they are protecting.

          Businesses like the freedom to compete, but they hate the actual competitors- interesting paradox ! As competition comes in, prices drop, existing business has to work harder to innovate and be more efficient. As a consumer, I welcome competition always- I get more of what I want at a cheaper price.
          A lot of the regulations are designed to stifle competition actually and protect business, which is bad for me the consumer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 3 months ago
    What should U.S. policy be regarding trade with countries whose exports are created using actual slave labor. Impose tariffs? Prohibit all trade with that country? Allow unrestricted trade with slaveholders in that country? I don't think there is a simple answer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 3 months ago
    rbroberg:
    Force and fraud. That covers it.
    Reactive not proactive, that explains it.
    To a rational person who understands the nature of a free society there really is nothing more that needs to be said about the government's basis. All the rest is merely the mechanics of implementation. Any implementation that contradicts those two statements is not to be considered.
    Nothing could be clearer. Thanks.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
    Pretty much everything our current government does is PREVENT economic activity, not enhance it. They dont create jobs, the people do that. All government can do at this point is remove obstructions to people creating jobs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 3 months ago
    Politicians are moochers whose role is to ensure a level environment for commerce, nothing more. A global economy is a cancer for the US with its higher wages and standard of living, it is a weapon that can be used against us to bring us to our knees.

    I don't care if people outside the US eat, have access to medicines and are self sustaining - that their own peoples/nations responsibility.

    If anyone wishes to buy what they need from us I'm all for it. But the US, because of our standard of living, cannot be competitive in a global economy where autoworkers in BFE get $10 week without benefits. Automation is the solution but and automation costs jobs.

    Lower wages? Higher cost of living? More on subsidized living (welfare)?

    Pick your poison.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Enyway 5 years, 3 months ago
      It would help to properly define politics. It is two smaller words combined into a larger word. So, let's break down the word "POLITICS." The first word, "POLI" is actually a prefix which is a mathematical term meaning "many." Polynomials, polygon and such. The second word is "TICS," which are blood sucking parasites. So, the real definition of "politics is "many blood sucking parasites." Knowing this, what would you expect?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      Automation costs jobs, but gets things done cheaper and faster than humans. Therefore the toaster you want is super cheap, the strawberries picked by machine are cheaper than if picked by humans. The end game is less time that we all have to work for the same standard of living. Automation and competition means there isnt a NEED for us to work a full 40 hours a week on menial tasks. The tasks that arent effectively done by automation or competition from underdeveloped countries would pay more per hour.

      The only way to settle all this is to let the market operate freely. A truly free society finds a way to balance the needs of the population with the work that the people can do. No politician will ever figure that out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 5 years, 3 months ago
        There is another way to look at automation and jobs rather than the static automation takes jobs away from those replaced by machines. There can be such a thing as a dynamic economy where labor freed up can be freely hired to do new work. That is why in today's world labor increases, despite the large amount of automation, while standards of living increase along with the automation increase. Without automation removing some labor for other purposes, one would be back at dusk to dawn toil with a near sustenance type of life styles. Every machine which produces more than one can personally produce is an automatic producer of goods, it does not have to be controlled by any more than the human bio-computer to be a way to multiply human production and relieve labor for other purposes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 3 months ago
    You are correct. They do not. In fact, they usually erase them through inept laws, regressive taxes and regulations. The more they touch, the worse it gets. Protectionism has been proven over and over again to cause failure. The issue they keep wanting to address is usually one of the other guy "protecting", and that should be easy enough, "Don't do business with them". Either way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
          See my comment below regarding free-market ratings based on respect for and enforcement of Objective rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 3 months ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 5 years, 3 months ago
    RE: the threat of tariffs. Trump should stop threatening and change the message to, "The reasons I can bring jobs and companies back is because I will make American the sweetest place to do business, get rid of business-choking regulations, get rid of taxes that punish business, get rid of government interference at all levels of business. The reason Ford and Carrier and the other producers look outside the United States is because government drives them out."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
    For some reason I don't hear the most fundamental argument against tariffs. Suppose that Chinese workers, laboring in horrible conditions (which is not true), produce cheaper goods than US workers. By feeling sorry for Chinese workers, the US puts a tariff on their goods. The tariff money goes to the government, which wastes it. The American consumer (or industry and then the consumer) pays more and if the tariff succeeds in lowering the amount of product sold, that means that the Chinese workers have less work, less income and, with smaller quantity produced, there is less incentive to automate their production and, thus, keep the same workers laboring with little hope of improvement. As always, the best of the government's intentions result in the worse of outcomes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 3 months ago
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 3 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 3 months ago
    I do believe DT wants to use tariffs to protect USA jobs and also to provide a competitive environment in which companies and entrepreneurs can create more jobs here.
    This ain't telling a communist country what to do save for paying a tariff.
    There is a reason why I worked in a prison a few miles from Birmingham with lots of laid-off steel workers.
    I'm sure all the eco-nazis are happy that the ghostly looking chimneys I can see all over the west side of Birmingham can no longer belch smoke like they did back during the 70s.
    The Chinese don't mind being the ones to instead belch that said smoke--and then some!
    Hip, hip, hooray, the planet's saved from fires gone out with lots of jobs in Birmingham!
    As for steel workers loathe to boss convicted felons, there's always O the Great and Powerful's smoke and mirrors shovel-ready jobs he later joked about not being so shovel-ready.
    Oh, that was so funny as long as the joker has dark skin and a D beside his name.
    Yeah, me dino watched how folks just laughed along with O on my TV screen.
    So funny! So funny!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
      Actually I dont think DT would ever get significantly higher tariffs through congress. So much of our current economy is based on cheap chinese imported goods that it would cause so much disruption (start with Walmart, which buys from china whenever it can), it would just never happen.

      Incredible regulations and employee restrictions are the cause of a flight to china. Get rid of minimum wages, give work permits to the illegals, get USA entitled workers to understand there is cheap competition out there, and stop these employee giveaways and "entitlements" if you want to see jobs come back here.

      Why would I want to hire women if they are going to have babies and I am forced to pay them maternity leave ?? Why hire blacks or other minorities when it means an increased possibility of one of them filing some sort of discrimmination lawsuit against me?? In fact, why hire ANY humans if a robotic or automation solution is possible and practical??
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 3 months ago
        Good points about the regs & possible lawsuits, but as far as tariffs I think DT wants to simply level the trade playing field with countries that are slapping us around by slapping back.

        China is still a totalitarian regime, but its economic system has been becoming more free market (yes capitalistic) over the the past several decades. They know socialism/communism doesn't work and are getting out from under it as the US is getting deeper into it. That's the first reason their economy is growing and ours is not. The next reason is, as DT pointed out, is the currency exchange is being manipulated by the Chinese. Lets say they peg their currency as 8 Yuan per Dollar at their border. That means every dollar coming into China becomes 8 Yuan and every Yuan leaving China becomes 12.5 cents (US). In many cases (like European countries) that would be a big "so what" because the commodity costs balance out in the currency reasonably close. Not so with China because the commodity cost to the consumer between the two countries has a wide gap when you compare the artificial currency exchange. For example, when I lived in China a loaf of bread cost about 2 Yuan and a loaf of bread about the same size in the US cost about 2 dollars. That is a worker in China paid 20 Yuan an hour can buy 10 loaves of made in China bread and a worker in the US can buy 10 loaves of made in US bread. OK, fine, now the countries trade bread. When China ships a 2 Yuan loaf of bread to the US it costs the US consumer 25 cents US after currency exchange, when the US ships a 2 dollar loaf of bread to China it costs the Chinese consumer 16 Yuan! Why on earth would a Chinese worker pay 16 Yuan for a loaf of bread made in the USA when they can buy the same thing made in China for 2 Yuan. The ONLY difference is the artificially manipulated currency exchange by the Chinese government. Right now the US government does nothing about this and DT wants to end this crap!

        The main reason, IMHO, DT wants tariffs is two fold: 1) force countries that manipulate their currencies into balance and 2) even the field with countries that straight out tariff our goods but we do not do the same. Some countries, like China, do both! I'll leave you with this to think about (I've mentioned this in the Gulch before, but it's worth saying again): When I was in Beijing I discovered a Harley Davidson that sold for $16k (US) in Upstate New York sold for $40k (US) in Beijing. Do you think the difference in cost was shipping?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          I think DT is playing a negotiating tactic. China would NOT want tariffs, so might stop playing with their currency and let our products compete in china. He would NEVER get that thru Congress with all the lobbyists from major corporations that buy stuff from china and resell it here at ridiculous profits.

          I think the root what what China gets away with is the lack of a gold standard. If we were on that, I think our money would depreciate and the chinese stuff would cost more in US dollar terms. Things somehow would balance out. With the chinese hoarding dollars that we are printing up (worthless?), its one crazy system and this is the unintended consequence !!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 3 months ago
        Good points. +1, in fact.
        As for getting rid of stuff, how about those "incredible regulations?"
        That's falls under what DT is speaking of when he complains about stupid politicians and stupid deals.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
          Politicians are over enthusiastic about their subjects simply knuckling under peacefully to their regulations. The very creativity that sparks innovation ALSO sparks the finding of ways around the regulations- I suppose thats the source of "unintended consequences" that defeat the regulations themselves and then require a continual stream of additional regulations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 3 months ago
            Yep, that's how regs grow and grow.
            Me dino now thinks of weeds for some reason.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 3 months ago
              I will say the regs are getting written in ways that are more encompassing. For example, here in Las Vegas, you cant start ANY business until you apply for a license and are approved. An application will be denied UNLESS it is listed in the approved list of businesses determined by the City/County. Once approved, you are subject to inspection of your unopened but completely set up business (you have to rent a space and set it up as you would when open). From approval, you cant operate for 45 days, giving them time to complete and evaluate your setup.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo