Eight Questions for Protectionists
by Dan MitchellWhen asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as class warfare or income redistribution.
But based on all the speeches and media interviews I do, which periodically venture into other areas, I suspect protectionism vs. free trade is the biggest challenge.
So I want to ask the protectionists (though anybody is free to provide feedback) how they would answer these simple questions.
1. Do you think politicians and bureaucrats should be able to tell you what you’re allowed to buy?
As Walter Williams has explained, this is a simple matter of freedom and liberty. If you want to give the political elite the authority to tell you whether you can buy foreign-produced goods, you have opened the door to endless mischief.
2. If trade barriers between nations are good, then shouldn’t we have trade barriers between states? Or cities?
This is a very straightforward challenge. If protectionism is good, then it shouldn’t be limited to national borders.
3. Why is it bad that foreigners use the dollars they obtain to invest in the American economy instead of buying products?
Little green pieces of paper have little value to foreign companies. They only accept those dollars in exchange for products because they intend to use them, either to buy American products or to invest in the U.S. economy. Indeed, a “capital surplus” is the flip side of a “trade deficit.” This generally is a positive sign for the American economy (though I freely admit this argument is weakened if foreigners use dollars to “invest” in federal government debt).
4. Do you think protectionism would be necessary if America did pro-growth reforms such as a lower corporate tax rate, less wasteful spending, and reduced red tape?
There are thousands of hard-working Americans that have lost jobs because of foreign competition. At some level, this is natural in a dynamic economy, much as candle makers lost jobs when the light bulb was invented. But oftentimes American producers can’t meet the challenge of foreign competition because of bad policy from Washington. When I think of ordinary Americans that have lost jobs, I direct my anger at the politicians in DC, not a foreign company or foreign workers.
5. Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?
If we travel down the path of protectionism, politicians will use that as an excuse not to implement pro-growth reforms. This condemns America to a toxic combination of two bad policies – big government and trade distortions. This will destroy far more jobs and opportunity that foreign competition.
6. Do you recognize that, by creating the ability to offer special favors to selected industries, protectionism creates enormous opportunities for corruption?
Most protectionism in America is the result of organized interest groups and powerful unions trying to prop up inefficient practices. And they only achieve their goals by getting in bed with the Washington crowd in a process that is good for the corrupt nexus of interest groups-lobbyists-politicians-bureaucrats.
7. If you don’t like taxes, why would you like taxes on imports?
A tariff is nothing but a tax that politicians impose on selected products. This presumably makes protectionism inconsistent with the principles of low taxes and limited government.
8. Can you point to nations that have prospered with protectionism, particularly when compared to similar nations with free trade?
Some people will be tempted to say that the United States was a successful economy in the 1800s when tariffs financed a significant share of the federal government. That’s largely true, but the nation’s rising prosperity surely was due to the fact that we had no income tax, a tiny federal government, and very little regulation. And I can’t resist pointing out that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff didn’t exactly lead to good results.
We also had internal free trade, as explained in this excellent short video on the benefits of free trade, narrated by Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and produced by the Institute for Humane Studies.
My closing argument is that people who generally favor economic freedom should ask themselves whether it’s legitimate or logical to make an exception in the case of foreign trade.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
198 Comments
Number 1 is all you really need to know. No "buts".
But, but but terroristsss!!!!!
Seriously though, Dan's right on the nose. Trading increases wealth, regardless as to where the trade happens http://arcnx.co/pn6
I like #2 best, myself
I am an "Asphalt Jungle" Republican and I am totally a free trader. I have broken free trade into 4 sub-groups. The four groups are free tarde in goods, free trade in ideas, free trade in capital, and free trade in people. I live and work in the city of Milwaukee and I see how free trade can resurrect our city.. If I believe in free trade, I have to be pro-immigration. Milwaukee needs more free trade (of ALL kinds), not less.
ask a protectionist, if they don't mind other countries not buying our goods either. when we raise imports, nothing is stopping other countries from raising our exports. and if they do raise our exports, who is paying for the increased import tax, why the consumer. chicago had all of the candy makers leave, because of protectionist sugar prices. now you can buy lots of empty buildings cheap in chicago.
Smoot-Hawley. One of the many blunders that propelled us into a prolonged depression. Tariffs also increase the costs of parts used to make American goods. So you're gaining nothing with a tariff since you jacked up the price of production of an American good.
Who do the pro-tariff people think PAYS those taxes?? Hint: It ISN'T the foreign importer. Just like it isn't Ford, GM or Chrysler that pay the unreasonable demands of unions for more pay and more generous "benefits." It is ALWAYS the CONSUMER that pays for those things…every time. It's one of the reasons a new pickup truck costs $35K and up when a mere 30 years ago you could by a comparably-equipped F-100 or Silverado for about $5K.
1. Do you think politicians and bureaucrats should be able to tell you what you’re allowed to buy?
Straw man argument – that isn't what protectionism is about.
Now, do YOU believe in poisoning children and pets with lead and Melamine? Oooops. GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO PROTECT YOU – that is its sole purpose. Unless you are an anarchist, you have to agree with the premise. You can argue about how much protection. If you don't believe in doing away with the military, YOU ARE A "PROTECTIONIST."
If trade barriers between nations are good, then shouldn’t we have trade barriers between states? Or cities?
No, because we have a COMMON CULTURE, common tax base, and common quality of life, for the most part. You aren't talking about driving down people's quality of life to matching those who live on dirt floors in China and India.
Why is it bad that foreigners use the dollars they obtain to invest in the American economy instead of buying products?
By "invest" you mean foreigners buying up our infrastructure? GOOD PLAN! LOL!
Let's see everything to China, work for Chinese own companies and buy everything from China. GOOD PLAN!
Did your school books, printed in China, tell you to reject nationalism? That's pretty smart to get the native population to accept that claptrap when you are trying to take over their country and want little resistance. China doesn't reject it, btw. China is out for China.
Put in place true "pro-growth" reforms! (#4) Get ridiculous government regulations out of the way, make every state a "right-to-work" state and lower the business-tax rate. Free trade and free will of the people will soon level the playing field and all entities, business, people and government, will benefit and prosper!
4. Do you think protectionism would be necessary if America did pro-growth reforms such as a lower corporate tax rate, less wasteful spending, and reduced red tape?
GE paid no taxes. 'nuff said.
5. Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?
Only thing the government should be doing is slapping a tariff on goods coming in. See, that way you don't have any of this grey-area "reforms" bs. It is like having a FLAT tax vs the absurd system we have now with so many loopholes.
6. Do you recognize that, by creating the ability to offer special favors to selected industries, protectionism creates enormous opportunities for corruption?
Another straw man argument – there are no special favors. Everything is subject to the tariff.
If you don’t like taxes, why would you like taxes on imports?
There isn't going to BE any tax base if we keep hemorrhaging jobs! Encourage high paying jobs in the US – tariffs is the only way – the most elegant way – to do that.
8. Can you point to nations that have prospered with protectionism, particularly when compared to similar nations with free trade?
China, Brazil, Japan, just off the top of my head…oh yeah, THE UNITED STATES when we had tariffs (now we are losing everything without them.)
Tell me this – how do you protect against the practice of DUMPING without tariffs. The only way, and it will never work, is to throw up a bunch of LAWS and regulations – all of which will supersede our own laws.
Tariffs are a way to PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY!
Name me a globalist who is also a "protectionist." Oh, no, they all just *love* "Free Trade." What I say above is why.
I give up, the missing attribute thing keeps popping up again.
Protectionism is good when you're stopping lead painted toys, when you're making other manufacturers and vendors follow the same rules you make Americans follow. If it's not good to make THEM follow it, why do we need to? Do they have Sarbannes Oxley wrapped around their necks? I don't think so. To all your questions, any envisaged harm (and you've imagined quite a lot) is offset by the fact that it's only right, and the fact that most of the protectionism is tariffs, which are corrupt by their very definition, that something could be allowed if you paid a fee, but not otherwise.
Exactly, like, every OTHER capitalist society that has government intervention.
Not the same thing racist, anti-Semitic moron.
You are by far one of the most ignorant skinheads around.
And if GE did actually pay taxes, Helen, who do you think would be hurt by that. I'd hazard to guess the people buying GE washers and dryers. Of course, they wouldn't be buying GE washers and dryers then would they? It'd be cheaper to by an LG appliance manufactured in Korea (I think), right?
Companies don't pay taxes anyway. We pay their taxes for them every time we buy their products. You don't think that cost isn't built into the price?
If companies didn't have to pay taxes, or huge departments hired just to lower their tax exposure, their prices to consumers would be lower.
By the way, have you forgotten Nightfly's question? Do you want me to torture the guy that knows where your wife is being gang raped or not? It's a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?
Are you having trouble posting, Doc?
Apart from the fact that I don't think you could get a "comparably equipped" Silverado 30 years ago, Dave, your point is well taken.
we had a tariff on bearings, because foreign companies were dumping bearings. so a 200% tariff went in place. american companies followed suit by raising prices 150%. who won on that one?
And if GE did actually pay taxes, Helen, who do you think would be hurt by that.
This makes sense to the dope-smoking liber(al)tarians but everyone knows, viscerally, it doesn't really make sense. It is a rationalization by useful idiots.
If companies didn't have to pay taxes, or huge departments hired just to lower their tax exposure, their prices to consumers would be lower.
And since all things being equal, they pay some foreigner 1/10 what they would pay an American they will always be able to beat our price…..which is why you need tariffs. Else, get used to living on a 3rd world wage to "compete." Isn't "competition" grand. Sure it is…..according to the owners of the country who make the rules.
1. Do you think politicians and bureaucrats should be able to tell you what you’re allowed to buy?
A tariff doesn't tell you what you are allowed to buy, it just raises the price on certain items.
This question is thus completely inapplicable to the issue except as an emotional appeal to distract from it.
2. If trade barriers between nations are good, then shouldn’t we have trade barriers between states? Or cities?
Because states and cities within a country are part of the same economy. While there is a "global economy", it functions in a distinct fashion from a national economy. Barriers within an economic zone are more destructive to economic growth than barriers between economic zones.
Of course we do actually have trade de facto barriers between states and cities, and their effects are quite visible. Case in point, the prohibition on interstate health insurance.
3. Why is it bad that foreigners use the dollars they obtain to invest in the American economy instead of buying products?
"(though I freely admit this argument is weakened if foreigners use dollars to “invest” in federal government debt)"
And so you answer it yourself.
4. Do you think protectionism would be necessary if America did pro-growth reforms such as a lower corporate tax rate, less wasteful spending, and reduced red tape?
Again, this is diverting from addressing the issue directly.
Indirectly it is correct, but it begs the question as to whether or not it would be necessary if those were dealt with.
5. Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?
And the diversion continues with this collateral factor.
So let's turn that around:
If we do implement pro-growth reforms, do you think protectionism would help?
6. Do you recognize that, by creating the ability to offer special favors to selected industries, protectionism creates enormous opportunities for corruption?
Yes.
Do you recognize that by ignoring the rampant corruption existing in foreign competitors we are deliberately harming American companies by default?
7. If you don’t like taxes, why would you like taxes on imports?
I don't like taxes; and I don't like them on imports; and yes, I do recognize that even though they have a fancy different name tariffes are functionally identical to taxes.
Do you recognize that it then becomes a question of "Do you prefer to tax Americans for doing business with Americans as opposed to Americans doing business with foreigners?" Because that is what the issue then becomes. We need the funds for the government to function, and if we can get by placing a tax on people doing business overseas as opposed to people doing business domestically, you create an incredibly powerful political talking point.
Not that that makes it right, I'm just pointing that fact out.
8. Can you point to nations that have prospered with protectionism, particularly when compared to similar nations with free trade?
Well I am one of the people who will point to the prosperity of the early 1800s.
I am also one of the people who will point to Hamilton's discussion of the American System, and why those tariffs were critical to the growth of American manufacturing from a virtually non-existent base, which of course had been imposed by the British as part of their economic policy, and thus suggest that to rebuild the disintegrating American manufacturing sector a similar set of tariffs could again be beneficial.
So with that in mind, and with the blatantly prejudicial and corrupt practices of other governments in protecting certain of their industries, do you acknowledge that a tarriff can actually provide support for building or rebuilding the manufacturing sector, even with the dangers of doing so during a period of global recession?
I have no problem with free trade, as long as it's reciprocal. Too often we have signed trade agreements that let things into the US duty and tax free but, US goods have a heck of a time getting into the markets of those we have signed agreements with!
Mind you, the US has been guilty of this too! Lumber comes to mind.
Americans. You think you would have won if homes in your neighborhood start getting foreclosed – even if you have nothing to do with bearings? It will affect you. Why do you think there must be FOREIGN competition? That is the linchpin in this "Free Trade" argument. You can have AMERICAN competition.
That'll work too.
Yeah,,,, exactly what are you babbling about? No….. never mind…
Gentle Readers,
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Your questions pre-suppose an intolerance of Free Trade. The political question being asked by those of us who oppose current policies presented as ' Free Trade ', is, this:
" Is it Free Trade?"
The U.S. has no systemic trade deficit with over 200 trading partners in the world. Our systemic trade deficits exist with only 3 trading partners;
1. OPEC,
2. Communist China, and
3. Japan.
OPEC is a cartel, and not of private firms, but of governments, many overtly hostile to the United States.
Communism is antithetical to Free Trade. That is the point of Communism.
Japan has had a mercantile trade policy for over a century, making no apologies.
OPEC uses artificial market manipulations to destroy domestic U.S. energy production, then rips-off American consumers. The Communist Party in China has named the U.S. as their primary enemy. ( We didn't do that to them, they did it to us! ) Japan exports it's unemployment.
Our government is supposed to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A rational trade policy must consider the systems of political economy that exist in our trading partners. We didn't have ' Free Trade '
with the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany. OPEC came into being during the Cold War, and thus was not confronted as we had other, bigger problems, but the Cold War ended 20 years ago. There is no longer any rational policy basis for our supporting the Japanese economy at the expense of our own. And again, the notion of Free Trade with a Communist Party run country like China is simply ludicrous.
Our government should craft an economic policy to respond to these 3 cases of economic aggression. OPEC has been waging economic war against the United States since 1962. The Chinese Communists since the GH Bush Administration. ( Reagan didn't have ' free ' trade with China, but reciprocal trade – and that was during the Cold War. That is a policy that recognized the system of political economy in China. )
Free Trade has been an overwhelming success, but to ignore these 3 cases of failure and not consider rational policy changes to address those failures is to deny reality.
Libertarians and Progressive are alike in that they love to live in their ' holistic models ', but we don't live in textbooks, we live in the real world. Policy should reflect reality, not theory. We should produce our own oil and
tell Japan and China that trade will be reciprocal, i.e., buy $1 of US goods and we buy $1 from you.
Sincerely,
John Lepant Brighton CO
Edit DeleteReport
Reply
1. No. Are you claiming that protectionism keeps me from buying something made overseas?
2. Trade barriers between states and even cities could theoretically be erected, although they would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution (particularly Art. 1, Sec. 9).
3. I don't believe that it is a bad thing that foreign nations, holding currency that is legal tender in the United States, use it to invest in American enterprise at all. I'm not certain where that implication about protectionism comes from.
4. Sure. The fact that governments at all levels (federal, state, local, etc.) should all do as much as possible to make commerce as free as possible does not mean that protectionism should not be practiced. If a foreign competitor can build a product of better quality, they will find a market in this country for their product despite the imposition of a tariff being placed upon it. Furthermore, when a tariff is placed on a product and it is purchased by a consumer, the tax is paid strictly by the purchaser. When there is no tariff, or the tariff levied isn't sufficient to fund the government, the tax load is spread to the general populace in the form of income or other taxes.
5. Why would implementing protectionist practices lead to big government and the non-implementation of pro-growth reforms? I don't see the connection between the two. What I do see is that the implementation of big government policies has taken us away from protectionist policies and towards imposition of an income tax and less economic freedom.
6. The implementation of protectionist policies isn't what leads to corruption. Corruption leads to the favoring of one manufacturer over another manufacturer. Getting government out of the business of deciding who succeeds in business leads to the creation of a climate for innovation and competition. Making sure there is competition also improves the climate for innovation and competition.
7. Because taxes on imports are a constitutionally designated power. Please refer to Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
8. As you point out, the United States prospered under a small government, very little internal regulation and no income tax. You mention the Smoot-Hawley Act, which did not have the desired effects. This is true, but at the time, we had a burgeoning government presence, an income tax being imposed upon the population, and we had increasing regulations which worked to slow growth and put the breaks on production.
It isn't the tariffs that cause the problems, but the imposition of additional taxes and regulations on commerce within the United States which Americans have to fight that are the cause of the problems.
if american companies want to sell to foreign markets, much larger then usa market, we must consider foreign tariffs. the people who foreclosed in my neighborhood were the people who should have never purchased a house. one guy got a loan for 100 grand more then his house was ever worth. some idiot gave him the loan, and he stopped paying on it once the interest rate went up. not only did he get foreclosed on, but trashed it too. what do bearings have to do with idiots buying houses? this post was about foreign protectionist policies, not foreclosures. why can we not have free trade?
"It is a rationalization by useful idiots." Nope, it's simple math, Helen.
"And since all things being equal,… etc." Nope again, with that logic, why is GE making anything in America now?
There are lots of reasons companies want to manufacture in America when they could easily get their products made somewhere wages are cheap. Labor cost isn't always the defining parameter, Helen.
BTW, the eighth guy has just mounted your wife. Are you ready to torture the guy I caught yet?
what about sugar? the usa price for sugar is three times more then world prices, why might you ask? sugar tariffs, by american sugar growers. by raising the prices on sugar, who gets stuck paying for this high cost, you or the government? why has every candy maker left chicago for international manufacturing, most moved to canada. they save 66% on sugar purchases just by moving over the border. and who cares if some country wants thier people to pay higher prices. ok, so japan puts a high tarrif on tv sets, so america should a, do nothing, b, raise the tariff? raising the tariff does not lower the consumers price here, or in japan. so we should make our consumers sacrifice, because japan wants thier people to pay higher prices? go back and read that walter williams link.
1. Do you think politicians and bureaucrats should be able to tell you what you’re allowed to buy?
Protectionism doesn't necessarily prevent the purchase of a foreign made good. It could simply make a domestically produced good more competitive within the US market.
2. If trade barriers between nations are good, then shouldn’t we have trade barriers between states? Or cities?
No but because we’re a common market with common culture and common regulatory burdens (give or take a little). Plus protectionism between the states as the question implies is specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
5. Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?
Yes because it preserves some base level of manufacturing capability. A primary purpose of this would be to always preserve the capacity to produce goods required to defend ourselves in the event things become less than friendly with our main suppliers at the moment and they stop shipping the widgets, circuits, ball bearings, steel plates, etc… we would kind of need during a time of war. Do you really think China will continue to supply us in the middle of the next world war. I don’t want or expect there to be one but a good way to prevent there from ever being one is never become so weak and dependant on outside manufacturing that we can be rendered helpless by a simple and relatively short blockade.
6. Do you recognize that, by creating the ability to offer special favors to selected industries, protectionism creates enormous opportunities for corruption?
This is absolutely true and is why I would base the import tariffs on the cost delta of complying with US regulations (labor, environmental, etc…) and the local ones (if any) where the goods were made. If the foreign manufacturer can prove that they meet all the same standards as something manufactured here then the goods come in tariff free. Is there any point with having environmental rules to limit the emissions of pollutant gas X at the cost of Y thousands of dollars per Z number of units produced when the guy just on the other side of a line on a map can dump all he wants?
7. If you don’t like taxes, why would you like taxes on imports?
I’m not taxing imports simply enforcing the same regulations as a manufacturer here has to comply with.
8. Can you point to nations that have prospered with protectionism, particularly when compared to similar nations with free trade?
I’m not a historian but I sincerely doubt there’s a historical analogy to the regulatory full nelson we’ve put ourselves into relative to the rest of the world.
Enforce our environmental regulations on imported goods and clamp down on how easy it is to export technology work or manufacturing practices developed at some point along the line by taxpayer dollars and I think a reasonable equilibrium could be achieved. Now if the other guy can meet our regs and can still under bid all domestic suppliers then good for him.
I am protectionist to this extent:
I don't think it is fair to allow businesses who operate in countries with lesser environmental, safety and wage regulations EQUAL access to our markets. Tariffs should be imposed that balance this so that there truly is a level playing field.
Also, I don't think that American businesses that outsource jobs overseas should have any preference in re-importing those products or labor.
Utter nonsense. The bones of economic isolationism litter Eastern Germany to this very day courtesy of their dance with your notions of a protective government. Tell me oh economic genius, what portion of the wealth of America was created in a trade vacuum?
Yes, the missing attribute thing. You spend twenty minutes on a lucid, rational defense and then can't get it to post. Frustrating. It usually makes me revert to replying from yahoo email, but then I get the trolls with their #%@@#DIV cut and pasting.
if american companies want to sell to foreign markets, much larger then usa market, we must consider foreign tariffs.
They already have tariffs and also will not choose to buy from American when they can support their own industries. See, other nations are not made up of numbskulls who think it is "chic" to saw off the limb you are sitting on to save a few pennies in the short term.
what do bearings have to do with idiots buying houses?
Those who work in the industry have house payments.
Yeah, that's sort of what mine said, except for the missing attribute again. Sheesh, nice one, BZ, it's like your channeling me…..are you craving tortilla chips and queso right now? Spooky, dude.
Except I'm a lot less tariff oriented, and more concerned with the level playing field as to rules and such, which would mean loosening the rules here considerably, not restricting them elsewhere.
Wow – a post of yours I can agree with.
So, force the foreigners to buy our products? Many of them won't even if they weren't more expensive. How does that work?
i do not but the camera i use because the guy down the street has a house payment. capitalism is about serving your fellow man. currently the best cameras in the world come from japan, so i get my camera there. i can buy american pwm drives, or chinese pwm drives. my customers refuse to pay for the american ones, they prefer the inexpensive ones, which have more features by the way. so should my customers pay more for less? the plc i prefer is either low end china, high end japan. they both exceed anything made here, should i not offer the best? i also have a house payment, but i have yet to offer my prices with the caveat, oh my note is due tuesday, place an order today.
Notice that there is no mention of actual security – physical and economic.
Physical has multiple parts. All these IMPORTS are a danger to us. This also comes in many forms – disease, invasive species, contraband, WMDs. Not really an issue if you don't import all this crap, though.
And what of the threat of having our military outfitted by foreign goods?
Economic – the academic liberal/libertarians who have never gotten their hands dirty don't understand this all doesn't exist as some textbook extrapolation. Econ nerds think that if a US factory closes, then the foreigners jack up the prices (which is the plan with dumping – something these free traders are in denial about, too) you can't just open up the factory again. The tools are gone. The skill are gone.
This isn't about "economic freedom" it is about the protection (add "-ism" if you can only deal with straw men arguments) of this country – the basic role of government.
Starting from scratch, Mitchell's questions make sense.
But we aren't starting from scratch here. And getting back to the starting line is going to require some changes.
That is the problem with Libertarians; they have trouble implementing change in the world we now live in.
Trade agreements have distorted the free market, as have taxes, regulations and unions.
Even if we had a trade balance, we would have some way to implement Mitchell's utopia. But we don't.
We are competing globally with the likes of BRIC.
Based on our reality, a little protectionism is in order. We need some way to bring manufacturing back home. Products will be more expensive, but we'll have more jobs. Unions will have to accept less, but we will have more jobs.
The "service economy" is not sustainable.
I don't know if your comment is fer or agin me, Peteee
We do have an actual free trade agreement with Canada yet, lumber seems to be a constant irritant!
As far as sugar is concerned, I don't think we have a free trade agreement with any sugar producing nations. That may change if the one with Colombia is signed. How it would affect sugar prices, I don't know but, it should bring about lower sugar prices if the purpose is indeed free trade, despite the sugar lobby.
As well, we do not have a free trade agreement with Japan either.
Like I said, for it to be "free" trade, it has to be reciprocal.
but those trade deficits are not from our government to thiers. opec is complicated. if we would start drilling and exploring our own oil, world prices would drop. the department of energy was started under carter, with the mission to lower our dependance of foreign energy. since it was started, our use of foreign oil has increased every year since the department was started. what have we gotten from all those years of spending? so our own government policy is mostly responsible for our increaded oil costs. yes, i do not want to support middle east dictators, but canada is our largest oil supplier. we have plenty of oil and natural gas, if only we could drill for it here. why is it environmentally safe to drill in every country but ours?
Capitalism is not about serving your fellow man. And capitalism is not "free market."
currently the best cameras in the world come from japan,
Really? How FASCINATING. I want you to tell me why that is. Your explanation will be your unraveling.
Oh, btw, Japan is quite protectionist….
It's obvious you have no idea what foreigners will buy from Americans even if the price is higher!
Harley Davidson comes to mind.
Now, about your wife being gang raped, Helen.
Ready to torture now?
Eastern Germany? Kind of a moot point – you realize that was the one controlled by communists, right?
it is just a commnet. we do not need a free trade agreement. sugar will not drop no matter what colombia does, since this is imposed by congress. chicago might have kept all the jobs now lost if we would not have tried so hard to protect sugar growers. putting tariffs on imports only screws consumer here in the usa. japan putting tariffs on imports screws thier people, not ours. we will never control foreign governments, we can only do what we can to help our people. and just arbitrarily charging import tariffs does not help anybody in our country.
Harley Davidson are much better than they used to be and they still hang on to an over-bloated reputation for what they really are. But they were saved from going out of business due to protectionism. Go good choice! LOL!
In the 1980's, President Ronald Reagan slapped a 50% tariff on Japanese motorcycle imports, sheltering Harley-Davidson from competition for five years so they could become more productive and efficient. Before the five years were up, Harley was exporting to Japan.
Hey, who was that….oh yeah RONALD REAGAN. LOL!
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-020503-...
Again idiocy. What commonality in culture does your left leaning sensibilities share with any that causes states to never be dissimilar, other countries to be insolubly alien yet also can't accept the deportation of illegal workers who come from such alien places when its your very own paradigm of authority "The Protective Government" who created laws against such in the first place? Not afraid you might taint your unique high born culture with the vile practices of immigrant cultures who might dare speak out against a $100 toaster made in Unioncity USA? Oh that's right! Like every other country on this planet, yours was at some point founded by those emigrating from another place and bringing their own culture with them.
yes, japan might be, but nikkor lenes are the best in the world. as a professional photographer, i can tell you of thier superior quality. name me one american camera, or lens maker? we don't have any, zero, zip, nada. yes, capitalism is a free market. we just don't let the market be free, we strangle it with government controls. the government does nothing to help a free market, except get out of the way.
Dear pt,
Thank you for the favor of your reply. Prior to OPECs establishment in 1962, the U.S. was producing all of our own oil, and we even exported a small surplus. We even had FT plants in Missouri making motor fuel out of coal. We became an oil importer after OPEC was established, and the imports have steadily increased.
That's the point of OPEC.
Your points about flaws in our domestic policies are well – taken, but the OPEC is the driver for our trade imbalance in oil.
It may have been reasonable to ignore this during the Cold War, 1962 – 1990, but the Cold War is over now, and a rational policy should recognize this reality.
Sincerely,
John Lepant Brighton CO
I don't necessarlly have an issue with the concept of "free trade". It's how it is set up to largely benefit politicians and large corporations. Most (all?) of these treaties as written and enforced are contrary to the arguments made in defense of them. In actual practice it is little more than crony capitolism expanded to include global participants.
When combined with our tax codes, the EPA, and the corruption of the labor unions our manufacturing base has been crushed over the last 40 years. Look no farther then the weak "Made in America" standards combined with the lack of emphasis in promoting them.
The highest form of your Protectionist Government according to many holding the ear of your very own current incarnation of POTUS (no Sociology and Socialism in post secondary education America?) and certainly not moot but the experiment's results presented raw but again I'll stonewall you with THE question I've yet to have answered by every American protectionist/unionist/socialist I've written or spoken with, "What portion of the wealth of America was created in a trade vacuum?"
The manufacturing might of America has waned, not to greed but the slow and sure strangulation of death by bureaucracy. A poster early on in this thread believed in the free trade of goods, ideas, capital and people. I submit that when a people are subjugated to meddlesome interventionists, ideas, goods and then capital cease, as Ayn Rand pointed out in 'Atlas Shrugged'. When entrepreneurs can no longer realize their dream, if people like Elizabeth Warren can mandate that everything you work for becomes someone else's, what's the point? Protectionists policies are nothing more than obfuscation and misdirection away from the real culprit; onerous legislation and regulation.
Heh.
No craving, but then I've had empanadillas several times recently, so . . .
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how partisans of either side want to parse it, it ultimately comes down to two simple things:
1. Government needs money to function. Removing that money from the market creates a drag on the economy. The two are fundamentally opposed yet a balance must be found.
2. As part of its function, the government must do the least possible to interfere with the market self-regulating itself. This includes any and all responses to interference in the market by other governments, including if necessary direct retaliatory measures, understanding that both tariffs and subsidies come under the Catch-22 of the first point.
As it goes, I'd say I'm with you on the issue:
As I said, I don't like taxes. I like them so little I don't even like Cain's 9-9-9 Plan. It taxes the same money two time too many (as corporate income, as personal income, as consumer spending), and is needlessly regressive and intrusive. Tax income once, with the government prohibited from issuing tax exempt bonds, add some minor service charges for public ports and roads that require constant upkeep, applied exclusively through existing government licensing agencies (you pay your road tax when getting your license plates, not by forcing the car dealer to be a tax collector), and be done with it.
That leaves international trade issues to be resolved as an issue of equal rules, with a lot of reducing ours, and as little of responding to others as possible. If, and its a big "IF", a protective tariff is required because of that then do it, but make it clear why it is being done, and how quickly it will be withdrawn once the causative factor is corrected.
It saddens me that Principles of Economics is not a graduation requirement from every university in America.
Short version on tariffs: Tariffs are always, always detrimental. Tariffs beget more tariffs and consumers get screwed.
What I was addressing was your statement that foreigners will not buy American products, Helen.
In fact, there are Japanese willing to pay exorbitant prices for Harley Davidsons!
Further, America exports a huge amount of goods around the world. Who's buying them if, as you say, foreigners aren't?
Again, you are differentiating between trade and free trade. Reagan slapped on the tariffs in response to Japanese tariffs. As you, yourself, note, it worked.
Still ignoring the fact that your wife is being gang raped and you don't care to stop it, I see! Sad.
we wouldn't have to worry about opec if we pulled our own from the ground. american expertise is what the world depends on for oil drilling today. but we cannot do it here at home because of environmentalists. opec does not need be the driver of our oil use, a sound energy policy would go much farther. disband the department of energy, and the epa. both are what is causing heavy manufacturing to leave the usa, and the poor oil drilling record. try and pour cast iron in the usa, and see what road blocks the epa will put in your way. go to china, and they will say, just put it over there, and have a nice day.
Agreed but,, I don't know about the sugar tariff, Peteee. If a deal is signed with Colombia they will have to do something about the sugar question.
If I were a Colombian negotiator, I would insist on it!
Now this is MUST be getting embarrassing for your keyboard. None of the countries you have stated are economic isolationists. Absolutely none by any metric. China IS trade. Brazil's own expansions into its neighbour's markets alone has been at a rocket's pace. As for Japan, they are America's industrial complex completely staffed by nationalist conservatives. Their consumption of new technology alone, which exceeds yours by an amazing margin, is only accomplished within heavy access to outside markets which pays for the development costs all industry needs to survive. Where you are happy with your iphone4, the Japanese are looking for 5 next month and 6 just before Christmas with 7, 8 and 9 before the end of next year. That level of consumerism can't exist in an environment of trade isolationism. Tariffs are themselves merely a mechanism used to enforce market access to the exporting nation, not stop imports in favour of protectionism.
no, the tariffs are done on our end, to punish you and me, so we can protect the jobs of sugar farmers. colombia is not the problem, or is any other sugar producing country, but the farmers here, keeping prices high, so they can keep thier jobs, and they do not care who gets laid off due to thier policy. just ask all the jobs lost in chicago, the former candy making capital of the world. this is why we need to rid washington of entrenched politicians, and put everyday americans in there.
Again, I agree, Peteee. I'm on your side!
You do not have a clue. I will give you a first hand example of exactly how the federal government destroys jobs. If you are in the business of making upholstered furniture in volume and you want to import fabric from China or India or wherever that will be processed (cut and sewn which requires skilled labor) in your factory, you will pay approximately 10% to 15% duty (depending on composition of the fabric) in duty. If you import the same fabric, but already cut and sewn (ready to put on the furniture by less skilled labor) you pay no duty. In certain instances, the feds have allowed U.S. manufacturers to declare their physical factories (under federal guidelines) to import unprocessed (not cut and sewn) goods into their factories duty free. It is a rigged game. Most folks do not realize this.The source of the problem of jobs lost is stupid and unfair regulations. I know. It has cost me a huge amount of income. BTW, don't give me some snarky response. I may jump out of your computer screen and frighten you.
Look, it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore.
There goes OhSoStupid again, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like a bad stink.
There OhSoStupid goes again, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore.
Look, it's OhSoStupid at it again, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like yesterday's manure.
Hey,it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like a bad case of STD.
Protecting the United States of America is always a good thing…. anyone, and I do mean anyone who believes differently is in fact a Traitor to the United States of America, and those are the facts.
That's OhSoStupid, doing what he does best, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like a bad case of diarrhea.
Look, it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore
That doggone OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore, like a howling mad-dog.
What's that smell? Oh, it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore, like re-cycled horse manure.
There he goes again, that OhSoStupid is still spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like a really bad rash.
He just can't help himself, poor old OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore like a bad case of STD.
driving down people's quality of life to matching those who live on dirt floors in China and India……..and Ohio, and Indiana, and …………
I admire how you subdivided free trade, it elucidates what's at stake. I might reconsider, "Free to trade in people," however, it might give people the wrong impression, for obvious reasons.
But but… China doesn't play fair!!! We need to start a trade war!!!! That'll teach em!
End Sarcasm
You do realize that there are standards in place? You do realize America has always had in place some measure of antitrust regulation? You do realize companies such as Toshiba, Philips and a host of others have been fined enormous sums for violation of America's antitrust laws? Also tariffs have bugger all to do with "sovereignty" and I suggest you look up the term. I'm sure the UAW sees anyone making a dime they aren't able to get a piece of in the American automobile industry as a foreign invader slaughtering children in their beds but the rest of the awakened world I assure does not.
As for the "Name me a globalist who is also a "protectionist."", please read over things before hitting that "Submit Comment" button. You may just as well have ended defending your position with a comment on the colour of socks worn by your neighbour.
Name an American product whose place in the Japanese market is obstructed by a tariff and not merely an overall cost of manufacturing pricing that product from the market? Your government gets its access as they to your own market though trade negotiation. What a company does once approved within that country is up to them. The approval is also something YOUR government grants too. You seem to think America is an open door any anyone can do business therein, absolutely wrong.
Free Trade at what cost ? High unemployment ? An ever increasing welfare state, because there are no jobs ?Greater input of foreign countries and cultures into the U S thus influencing our way of life .The corporate bottom line comes full circle when cheap imported goods once made in the US and now produced in China and elsewhere for the American consumer can no longer be purchased, because Joe six pack doesn`t have the income to feed and house his family, basically an economic grid lock – a Catch 22 situation.There needs to be decisive leadership at the very least to strike a balance on trade vs self-destruction. Both political parties are culpable for the mess they have given the real American citizens. Real Americans are on the verge of losing their own country, Stop the foreign wars,immigration and Chinese imported garbage.
Japan has been at the cutting edge of affordable optics for decades? They carry thousands of international MANUFACTURING patents (meaning novel equipment and methodology) as well as materials and design. That's only off the top of my head. Try your own US Patent Office, its full of these documents which also display what might just exist in a place such as Japan's own patent registry.
"GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO PROTECT YOU – that is its sole purpose."
Wrong!
In America, Government exists soley to secure our God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is the the sole purpose the the Republic we have been bestowed.
You are confusing deficit spending with trade.
Trade is good for both parties, always.
Deficit spending is the ruination of nations.
Spare us. Gov does not protect us, we do. Protectionism IS about politicians telling us what to buy and about crony capitalism. BTW defending people from lead paint IS telling someone what not to buy.
Protectionism is not protection. Its favoritism. Its favoring one over another.
Why not instead allow china and india to build up their quality of life so they aren't living on dirt floors. Why block them from achieving that?
Apples to oranges.
You realize "secure" and "protect" are synonyms……right?
GE paid no taxes. 'nuff said.
GE paid no taxes directly due to the progressive tax policies that offered rebates, tax cuts and subsidies for green tech. They merely labelled everything they did as green tech and got huge tax breaks plus their CFL light bulbs are subsidized by our tax dollars.
Only thing the government should be doing is slapping a tariff on goods coming in. See, that way you don't have any of this grey-area "reforms" bs. It is like having a FLAT tax vs the absurd system we have now with so many loopholes. Tariffs are damaging because they raise the price of parts for items made in the US. read up on the Smoot Hawley act that gimped the US during the depression. They don't generate revenue because they raise the price of imported products used to make American products.
Another straw man argument – there are no special favors. Everything is subject to the tariff. Actually yes it is favoritism because some companies use foreign parts while others don't. Also tariffs raise the price of goods preventing lower rung companies from competing with larger companies with deeper pockets. Also small companies in the US must import parts and supplies while large companies can afford to make their factories over seas thereby avoiding the tariff altogether.
We import a great deal of jobs but massive taxes are not going to promote jobs in the US.
BTW defending people from lead paint IS telling someone what not to buy.
LOL! OK, run that up the flag pole. Good luck with that.
Protectionism is not protection. Its favoritism. Its favoring one over another.
Yeah, favoring OUR COUNTRY over another. Just like patriotism…….RIGHT? I guess you have been programmed to think of yourself as some "global citizen" just like the globalists want, eh?
You must be logged in to post a comment.