FOUND! A free trade pub. amazin', but true!

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.

 

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.

?

 

not partner with anyone? they make us rich