https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tariffs...-trade-china-manufacturing-rand-paul-312d6537 MAGA socialists ain't gonna like it. I know pubs like appealing to the Reagan myth (guess what inf was at 10/24/88?), but BIG GOV RONNIE had a horrible record of free trade. Hence, I find that a weird tactic for Rand to use. Surely he knows RR's poor trade record. Ronald Reagan knew what makes a nation prosperous. “Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace,” he said in a 1982 radio address. That sentiment was in line with years of conservative policy. The Republican Party had long stood for free markets and free trade, principles that helped cement America as the world’s economic superpower. Sadly, many in my own party seem to have forgotten these lessons. A populist faction insists on imposing more and higher tariffs that would raise the prices of everyday goods and services as well as destroy the commercial incentive for nations to live in peace. Such advocates claim that tariffs protect American workers from foreign competition. In practice, they hurt the workers they purport to help. Consider Chinese-made electronics. When tariffs are imposed on products like smartphones and laptops, as Donald Trump is proposing to do, American consumers end up paying higher prices. A report from the Consumer Technology Association projects that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs could raise technology prices for U.S. consumers by as much as 21%. China accounts for more than 90% of U.S. laptop and tablet imports. Its manufacturers won’t bear the brunt of these tariffs—American consumers will, as the levy will be passed on to them in the form of higher prices. This is basic economics at work. When we place a tariff on a foreign product, we artificially inflate its price and allow domestic producers to raise their own. Consider a Chinese-made widget priced at 50 cents competing with an American-made version at $1. By slapping a tariff on the Chinese widget, raising its price to $2, American manufacturers have the freedom to raise theirs as high as $1.99. The consumer is left with no real choice but to pay more. A 2019 estimate by three economists, published in the New York Federal Reserve blog, found that Mr. Trump’s first-term tariffs increased per household annual costs by $831 between 2018 and 2019. This disproportionately hurts low- and middle-income families.
from the ed. board https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-...er-29c07e94?mod=opinion_feat1_editorials_pos3 Mr. Trump started his first term with pro-growth deregulation and tax reform. He began his tariff wave in 2018, with targeted levies on steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar cells, and a variety of goods from China. He held off adding a tax of up to 35% on foreign autos, even as his Commerce Department wrote a report calling them a national-security threat. The evidence is clear that the tariffs had real costs and reduced the growth spurred by his other policies. Other countries retaliated, hitting U.S. producers of everything from apples to whiskey. The government paid farmers billions in compensation. Harley-Davidson had to shift production for its overseas customers to Thailand to stay competitive. There was no great boom in manufacturing employment. More jobs involve using steel than making it, and one study said higher steel prices led to 75,000 lost manufacturing jobs. Consumers paid more for many products, as companies passed on tariff costs. The economic studies on these points are copious, and it’s worrisome that Mr. Trump and his advisers dismiss them.
Please use the term 'Pub, with an apostrophe. As a Brit, I got very excited about this thread for all the wrong reasons.
Can only speak for self on the topic, but I find Adam Smith is as correct on tariffs in the present as he was in 1776: the only two times tariffs make sense are in support of national security (i.e. to protect strategic industries in time of peace so they remain viable in time of war) and to support a nascent but growing home industry, not to protect an existing but increasingly uncompetitive one. An example of the latter would be, say, the wine industry during the 1930s as the country was coming out of Prohibition. Foreign wines would have naturally been much cheaper and would have crushed the potential of that industry.
Someone should ask Rand Paul if he believes in the free movement of labor via 'open' or less-restrictive borders or employment documentation, i.e. 'free trade' for labor.
Yes, that would require some sound judgement by national leaders. So I’m afraid you’re out of luck this election cycle, just like the last one, and the one before that …
Do you think there are cases where it is in the country’s interest to place tariffs on goods if - the country of origin is a geopolitical foe, and the product in question is of particular importance from a national security perspective - the country of origin intentionally subsidizes the product in question to drive down price and drive out international competition - the country in question has much more lax environmental or labor safety standards than ours ?
l_boy said: ↑ Do you think there are cases where it is in the country’s interest to place tariffs on goods if - the country of origin is a geopolitical foe NO , and the product in question is of particular importance from a national security perspective GOOD GOD, for the (probably not) last time, yes. But the threat to that industry needs to be direct & sig. &, guess what steel meets neither. - the country of origin intentionally subsidizes the product in question to drive down price and drive out international competition NO. We manipulate our currency & we heavily subsidize. See new NAFTA & the EV credit law for example - the country in question has much more lax environmental or labor safety standards than ours NO. ?
If the idea is that you want a geopoltical foe, I guess you should do tariffs. That seems to be what Americans want, some kind of enemy at all times, because its the only way that some people can think of to "unite" us as a country in common purpose. But interdependent trade would seem to make antagonism less likely.
I'm for free trade. I support tariffs to offset foreign government price support for that particular industry. If China sells something for $10, but the Chinese government "supports" the item with $5 of help their real cost is $15 and it would be appropriate to put a $5 tariff on the item. However, only if the US does support the domestic industry with similar support then the tariff should be offset by the amount of US support. If the US supports the US item with $2 then the tariff amount should only be $3.
Also the country of origin sets out to have such low prices it crushes our manufacturing of said product. Puts our companies out of business so there is no longer any competition.
Do you not think China wants to have much great control of the World? China plays the long game and isn’t looking to really partner with anyone.