ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Main Street First

This is a good sign of the God-Emperor's America First economic agenda in action. And the Main Street of America at that.
White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn has resigned from President Donald Trump's administration.

The former Goldman Sachs president and free trade advocate Cohn, whose departure date will come in a few weeks, decided to quit after Trump announced he would impose stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.... Cohn clashed with Trump's protectionist advisors on the issue of tariffs. At a meeting with steel and aluminum executives last Thursday where Trump announced the move, Cohn argued against it, warning about price increases for steel and aluminum products, according to a person in the room.
Free trade is not good for the US economy or the American public. But it is good for the financial elite that lives as a useless parasite off both as it plays the "heads I win, tails you bail me out" casino. And for those who missed my debate with economist Bob Murphy, the best thing about tariffs is the fact that they are an alternative to income taxes, a benefit that Bob even conceded during the debate.
VOX: My fourth argument against free trade is practical. Bob wrote that “the most obvious way to realize that tariffs make a country poorer is to realize that tariffs are taxes on domestic citizens, not on foreign producers”. That’s correct but that would only be true if the alternative was no taxes. That is obviously not the case now, it will never be the case, and it should be readily apparent that a nation with a government funded by tariffs will be wealthier and freer than a government funded by income taxes. Tariffs are considerably less intrusive and less economically disruptive than the personal and corporate income taxes that have replaced them. Free trade is unlikely to make a country wealthier if it replaces its tariffs with income taxes. (So to answer Bob’s question of how do politicians make a country wealthier, they do so by substituting tariffs for income taxes.)

BOB: One last thing here. Let's see. He admitted, and I think it was very telling, that Vox admitted that tariffs are taxes on US citizens. So I wasn't sure if he was going to go with me on that. He does. So again, Vox is now admitting that yes, the US government imposing taxes on US citizens make us better off and in some sense wealthier and he is just saying in comparison to income taxes. Well, fair enough, I do concede that. By the same token, Obamacare can make America richer if the alternative is socialized medicine. But, clearly, if we were debating if Obamacare makes us better off or not, I shouldn't have to be forced to use the default option or the baseline case of an even bigger government policy. So, by the same token here, when I say tariffs don't make Americans wealthier I am not saying the only other alternative is to say the income tax. So I do agree if we want to have some shared issues in the debate here, I do agree that tariffs are better than an income tax, dollar for dollar, but I still don't think it is correct to therefore conclude tariffs make us wealthier.
It's fine to hypothesize about a world with no taxes, no debt, and no government spending, but back here in the real world, we have a choice between a) income taxes, b) government debt, and c) tariffs. And tariffs are by far the economically preferable option that does the least harm to the citizenry.

Labels: ,

116 Comments:

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 07, 2018 2:23 AM  

You must have an interesting sleep schedule.

Even in the context of "less negative" tariffs still undeniably, mathematically make us wealthier. I'm just not seeing the problem here.

Blogger wreckage March 07, 2018 2:36 AM  

Excellent point Vox. Tariffs as an alternative to income tax would be a neat magical trick; there's some pretty exciting implications right off the bat.

Azure; the thing with tariffs is that if nothing but the tariff exists, all you've done is change some prices. Duck-shoving. But, if you use tariffs to remove income taxes, you haven't just changed prices; you've made it unilaterally more attractive to build, invest, manufacture, and employ, in the USA, because you've effectively handed people the income with which to cover the expense increase from the tariffs.

There is potentially a vulnerability to economic warfare built into that arrangement.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club March 07, 2018 2:36 AM  

Were all his responses as convoluted and inconclusive as that one example? What exactly is he arguing beyond really just not liking the idea of tariffs?

OpenID vfmshadow0342 March 07, 2018 2:40 AM  

the best thing about tariffs is the fact that they are an alternative to income taxes

The US government (by The Founder's design) was funded primarily BY tariffs; the much-celebrated Lincoln started the Civil War over tariff enforcement (see 1st Address to Congress, March 4, 1861), and also introduced the first federal income tax.

I guess it is too much to expect the cuckservatives to actually read and comprehend basic US history, much less the intentions of the Founders (their protestations to the contrary...).

OpenID baelzar March 07, 2018 2:49 AM  

Is Trump's plan to further reduce income taxes and increase tariffs?

Blogger bob kek mando - ( I love the smell of Autism on the internet. It smells like ... victoREEEEEEEEE ) March 07, 2018 2:53 AM  

I shouldn't have to be forced to use the default option or the baseline case of an even bigger government policy.


has this idiot ever looked at a "Free Trade" agreement, such as NAFTA? the TPP is more than 5,000 pages!

it damn well doesn't take 5,000 pages to implement a tariff.

by HIS OWN CRITERIA, tariffs are the smaller government program.

they are also what the nation was founded on.

why is he so fixated on Marxist Free Trade?

Blogger SciVo March 07, 2018 3:03 AM  

baelzar wrote:Is Trump's plan to further reduce income taxes and increase tariffs?

Likely not. He is on the record since at least the '80s of saying that we're getting ripped off on trade, and he would fix it if he were President. So this might set a record for backdating of promise kept, but he's already done his income tax cut. This is unrelated.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd March 07, 2018 3:05 AM  

Right now, libertarians are looking extremely naive.
It's irritating the way that they ignore the reality of how the world is. This guy refuses to consider the existence of the income tax, yet it is a huge part of our lives, and there's zero chance to do away with it without replacing the money somehow. Even then it seems impossible.
These guys are like leftists who defend high taxes for working and middle class Americans. "Our system would work great if......" The various "ifs" are meaningless.

Blogger LP999-16 March 07, 2018 3:21 AM  

Beautiful. With mere talk about tariffs, GEOTUS rolled another loser out of the WH like GS Cohn.

1 Either up working, chilling or planning something.

6 No, Dear Kek Mando, he didnt study enough. Really Murphy also brings the ACA to muddy the waters as well.

Many people never studied NAFTA, CAFTA or even TPP/GATT's impacts or followed their impacts every 5 years or so there are alot of poorly reasoned papers floating about all three.

Speaking of which I expect to hear more confusion regarding this lack of understanding; Given SJWs and flailing freak media does not understand economics. I fully expect they will probably call -no tariffs racist- or -yes to tariffs racist- whenever it suits their flawed narratives as they also confuse immigration tariffs (in relation to DACA Dreamers) to free trade/tariffs.

I wish this was a daily meme war; "I have already proved that free trade is totally incompatible with nationalism, national sovereignty, and the future survival of the nation due to the labor mobility required by it."

OT: Thank you IG News for covering WV's teachers-union strike no one else did. During the statewide stroke-strike that only appeals to people totally ignorant of WV's budget shortfalls which everyone else knew about. This matter carried a few unintended consequences; more childhood hunger with a surge of interest in homeschooling in order to return the women home with their children.

Blogger LP999-16 March 07, 2018 3:27 AM  

Why can't Keen take Cohn's job, that would be King, total game changer for America.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 07, 2018 3:29 AM  

"Azure; the thing with tariffs is"

I know.

Blogger SciVo March 07, 2018 3:43 AM  

LP999-16 wrote:This matter carried a few unintended consequences; more childhood hunger with a surge of interest in homeschooling in order to return the women home with their children.

May the hunger abate while the interest increases.

These can both be policy.

Blogger Judson McKinney March 07, 2018 3:58 AM  

Tariffs are an interesting concept.

I find it interesting, considering that tariffs were a major complaint issued by the southern states leading up to the American Civil War.

Considering what I have read on this blog about Abraham Lincoln and his Errors, how are the tariffs proposed by Trump a better service to the Nation?

Or do you consider Lincoln’s tariffs to have been a good thing as well?

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 4:14 AM  

" I'm just not seeing the problem here."

It's a severe problem for people who make all of their money by taking a skim off the top from international wage arbitrage (i.e. have stuff manufactured in low cost-of-living countries with low wage rates, and then sell the stuff in a high cost-of-living country at prices as if the good were manufactured in the high wage-rate company).

Who loses out the most? Company executives of corporations who have shifted all of their manufacturing to S.E. Asia, and yet continue to charge prices as if they were manufactured using high-quality American steel, made by quality-aware American workers.

The reason the third world(*) shitholes *ARE* third world shittholes is because these people generally seem to be unable to learn beyond what would be considered a 6th grade level. While they might understand neat and tidy, the concept of checking the output of a factory machine to make sure that it's still making parts that are within-spec is completely beyond their comprehension... EVEN WHEN YOU SHOW THEM.


(*) 1st World -- U.S. and allied industrialized countries. Generally 1st-class standard of living

2nd World -- USSR and allied Communist Bloc countries. Standard of living in 2nd World Countries is typically what was found in the U.S. in the era of 1880-1950. For example, most Russians, to this day, still do not own any of the following -- clothes washing machine. Clothes dryer. Dishwasher. Many other kitchen appliances.

3rd World. The "non-aligned" nations. Other than the exceptions of Switzerland (1st World standard of living) and India (2nd World standard of living), generally shitholes.

Blogger Rocklea Marina March 07, 2018 4:31 AM  

The communist says, when confronted with reality, "Ahh, but you see, that was not true communism."

The Free Traitor says, when confronted with reality, "Ahh, but you see, that was not true free trade."

See that, I just made a horseshoe.

Judson McKinney wrote:
"Or do you consider Lincoln’s tariffs to have been a good thing as well?"

Do you consider following your job to China a good thing? Would that be an interesting concept?

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 4:36 AM  

@13

Tariffs were a major complaint of the south going back to the beginning of the ratification of the Constitution, just as southern slavery was a major complaint of the north going back to the ratification of the Constitution.

The south's complaint about tariffs was basically that the manufactured goods which they bought from the north cost more, because northern manufacturers could charge more before foreign products became price competitive. It's the same old tarrifs => raise prices of foreign goods => protectionism (domestic producers are protected from loss of sales from over-charging).

In actual fact, it's not so clean cut -- that's really only true in an oligopoly or monopoly supplier situation. In a domestic free market, domestic producers are in price competition with each other anyway.

Currently, the price of sugar in the U.S. is significantly higher than in Canada (which produces none of its own sugar -- wrong climate). U.S. has a really high tariff on sugar to keep our domestic sugar producers in that business -- they literally can't compete with Cuban, Jamaican, etc. sugar plantations. Sugar cane LOOOOVES heat, humidity, and lots of direct sun. The rationale for the protectionism is that sugar is a critical wartime product, and so we want a base of sugar producers in the event of a large war.

Canada, having no hope of producing their own sugar, puts no tariff on sugar imports, because doing so would accomplish nothing but pissing off voters.
In this case, Canada loses nothing in exchange for free trade in sugar, but if we were to allow free trade in sugar, the cost would be that we completely lose our sugar industry -- or the cost would be fighting a war to invade some sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean, and either holding the islands as a U.S. territory, or installing and propping up a puppet government.

Blogger SciVo March 07, 2018 4:44 AM  

I admit it: I'm a quarter Finnish and I don't understand Finns.

I understand everything from Po-Dunk to the Oxford Comma.

And yet I cannot relate to this video of November Rain. It is objectively simpler, while subjectively stranger to me.

You are either in a nation or not, and I guess I'm just American. And by the same token, I would rather we have a lot less foreigners here; and since they have somewhere else they would belong and I don't, screw them, they need to go back.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 07, 2018 5:01 AM  

"It's a severe problem for people who make all of their money by taking a skim off the top from international wage arbitrage"

AKA the people I care about only so far as to seek means for their destruction.

Blogger Brett baker March 07, 2018 5:54 AM  

US history for most cuckservatives starts after the Civil War, when their ancestors were imported to drive down wages.

Blogger Brett baker March 07, 2018 5:57 AM  

US history for most cuckservatives starts after the Civil War, when their ancestors were imported to drive down wages.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 6:01 AM  

> White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn has resigned from President Donald Trump's administration.

An excellent way to start the day.

Incidentally, what is this with advisors leaving when a decision goes against them. Are they little kids who have to take their ball and go home? Grown ups realize that on a team their ideas won't always win.

I have to conclude they were never really on board with the Trump agenda at all and were merely trying to derail it from inside.

Blogger Samuel Nock March 07, 2018 6:07 AM  

Cohn did not take the position in good faith if tariffs are his reason for resigning. They were a central plank of Trump’s campaign platform.

Quite from Trump’s “Contract with the American Voter” that he released in October 2016:

Trump’s proposed Act to End Offshoring “establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.”

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 6:09 AM  

> OT: Thank you IG News for covering WV's teachers-union strike no one else did.

Unfortunately the legislature gave in to the blackmail. I'd have fired every one of them, prosecuted the unions using RICO, and outlawed state employee unions completely in the future.

Blogger FUBARwest March 07, 2018 6:38 AM  

If I missed the debate live is there a place I can watch/listen to the recording?

Blogger Dave March 07, 2018 6:46 AM  

If I may quote Sundance (emphasis added):

Also at Davos in January, after three decades of President Trump outlining his trade views, secretary Ross accurately said President Donald Trump has a forceful leadership style that some people don’t like. “We don’t intend to abrogate leadership, but leadership is different from being a sucker and being a patsy. We would like to be the leader in making the world trade system more fair and more equitable to all participants” Ross said.

Secretary Ross also challenged the panelists, including World Trade Organization Director-General Roberto Azevedo and Cargill Inc. CEO David MacLennan, to name a nation that’s less protectionist than the U.S. – – – He got no responses.

Not taking any guff, Secretary Ross then cited a study of more than 20 products that showed China had higher tariffs on all but two items on the list, and Europe all but four. The panel sat jaw-agape at Ross’s delivery of irrefutable facts to the audience. “Before we get into sticks and stones about free trade we ought to first talk about, is there really free trade or is it a unicorn in the garden,” said Ross. Again, no response from the panel.


It's been pointed out often here on this blog, but back here in the real world, we only have the illusion of free trade, reinforced daily by the traitorous politicians, media, and financial elite that it benefits.

Blogger Dave March 07, 2018 7:02 AM  

FUBARwest wrote:If I missed the debate live is there a place I can watch/listen to the recording?

https://tomwoods.com/ep-684-debate-on-free-trade-with-bob-murphy-and-vox-day/

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira March 07, 2018 7:16 AM  

Adieu, (((fgt))).

Blogger peter blandings March 07, 2018 7:35 AM  

i don't quite understand how cohn's resignation is a "good sign of trump's america first economic agenda in action." it's not as if gary cohn fell out of the sky, crashed through the roof of the west wing and just happened to land in an office that coincidentally had his name on the door. it was trump who hired the son of a bitch in the first place. and he knew cohn, and he knew damn well where cohn stood on trade. it seems more like yet another sign of the many inconsistencies and contradictions of trump's hiring policies. much the same as when nikki haley trashed him during the campaign regarding the muslim ban suggestion. he even responded negatively to her, suggesting she always agreed with him when she asked him for money. then he takes office and immediately appoints her UN ambassador, whereupon she instantly begins slamming russia, and thus begins trashing another trump campaign policy, which she continues to this day. and this is from someone who was on the trump train from day one, in fact, MINUTE one. and yes, vox, i'm THAT stupid so please explain it to me. how is it a good sign rather than another time wasting fubar?

Blogger pdwalker March 07, 2018 7:42 AM  

@Dirk Manly, I beg to differ on one point. For most Indians, Indian is 3rd world.

Blogger Rocklea Marina March 07, 2018 7:47 AM  

"i don't quite understand"

How entertaining would The Apprentice have been if nobody got fired?

Blogger Nate March 07, 2018 7:52 AM  

"I find it interesting, considering that tariffs were a major complaint issued by the southern states leading up to the American Civil War.

Considering what I have read on this blog about Abraham Lincoln and his Errors, how are the tariffs proposed by Trump a better service to the Nation?

Or do you consider Lincoln’s tariffs to have been a good thing as well? "

The Tariff's weren't lincoln's. they were part of what was called The American System... which was implemented to pay for the war of 1812. The problem however is more complicated than just "the south hated tariffs." In fact that wasn't even true. The South was fine with tariffs as a means to fund the government. The problem with the tariffs (and excise taxes, they got the goods going and coming) was they were paid by the South almost exclusively, because the South had an economy based on selling raw materials to other nations... and the North was busy building a homogenous economy based on selling stuff to itself. So the real issue was actually the fact that the money from the tariffs was largely funding the Industrial Revolution in the North. The South was literally paying for all of the work being done up there to build the infrastructure to make the revolution happen. Virtually none of the federal money was spent in the South... and this was overtly unconstitutional.

So... again.. it wasn't the fact that there was a tariff. It was the fact that they were taking money from the South and giving it to the North. And notice... it was the factories in the North... built with money taken from the South... that won the war for the North.

Tariffs are a tool. They are neither good nor bad. It is how one uses the tool that is good or bad.

Blogger pyrrhus March 07, 2018 7:59 AM  

@29 So the GE uses people who disagree with him for obscure purposes, then gets rid of them? Do tell!...Very much like FDR...Nikki Haley is an idiot and more loyal to India and Israel than the US...It will be fun when she leaves...

Blogger Durandel March 07, 2018 8:01 AM  

So long as the Right Libertarians (such as Mises Institute) continue to ignore both the real world for the hypothetical, and how other people may not behave nor have the same temperament as upper middle class, college educated white people, they will continue to drive people towards Omninational Alt/New Right.

It was part of what lead Vox and a lot us as his followers away from Libertarianism. That and Libertarianism ignores the problem of sin.

Blogger jacopo.saracini March 07, 2018 8:05 AM  

I agree with 23. Tariffs might make Chinese research chemical Viagra out of reach for many Boomers.

Tariffs also strip away the constitutional freedom to beggar thy neighbor through patriotic labor and regulatory arbitrage taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Good to see Cohn standing for conservative principles.

Seriously, I don't understand how one can be a serious defense hawk and free trader simultaneously. The free traders have greedily handed China the ability to effectively blockade the US by exporting US industrial capacity. These industries cannot be rebuilt overnight in the event of a national emergency.

Blogger Looking Glass March 07, 2018 8:11 AM  

@29 peter blandings

Cohn allowed Trump to lock down Wall Street's general compliance, while pushing the Tax Reform through. Gary also helped in landing export deals all over the place.

But, that war is over, so Trump needs new generals. The Globalist contingent thought they could change Trump. Funny thing about that...

Also, Gary wanted to be Fed Chair, but he lost that job with attacking Trump post-Charlottesville. He was always going to leave. Trump is going to burn through a lot of people, but part of announcing the 2020 campaign was also establishing an outside network for a lot of political activities. Staffing the WH has been an issue so far.

In related news, DACA died and the MSM couldn't muster a word that wasn't about something else. So, we can put to rest Trump lacking the entire set of dark triad traits. He just did a pure 6 months of Machiavellian optimization against the GOPe and the Dems.


@33 pyrrhus

Haley at the UN was a good choice. Sure, she's vane and annoying, but the UN should be treated with contempt. Though I don't think Haley gets that part. It was also a pay-off to SC support to move Haley somewhere else.

Trump fills people to roles with explicit orders, then backs them up. He's also really quick to fire, minus Cabinet positions, since he can't get most of those through right now.

Blogger Nate March 07, 2018 8:12 AM  

"Seriously, I don't understand how one can be a serious defense hawk and free trader simultaneously"

Most free traders are not defense hawks. They are neocons... which is very different.

Blogger Dave March 07, 2018 8:21 AM  

Looking Glass wrote:

@29
peter blandings

Cohn allowed Trump to lock down Wall Street's general compliance, while pushing the Tax Reform through. Gary also helped in landing export deals all over the place.

But, that war is over, so Trump needs new generals. The Globalist contingent thought they could change Trump. Funny thing about that...

Also, Gary wanted to be Fed Chair, but he lost that job with attacking Trump post-Charlottesville. He was always going to leave. Trump is going to burn through a lot of people, but part of announcing the 2020 campaign was also establishing an outside network for a lot of political activities. Staffing the WH has been an issue so far.


Yes, precisely. For additional perspective, see this from August: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/08/26/understanding-gary-cohn-vs-president-donald-trump/

Blogger Durandel March 07, 2018 8:23 AM  

The plantation South of the Democrats was import dependent economically, they were suffering the most for the tariff laws and the Morill tariff signed by the outgoing president Buchanan tripled the rate. Meanwhile, the proceeds of the tariffs were being spent in the North.

It’s different because the environment is different in America now.

Blogger Matthew March 07, 2018 8:23 AM  

Nate wrote:So... again.. it wasn't the fact that there was a tariff. It was the fact that they were taking money from the South and giving it to the North. And notice... it was the factories in the North... built with money taken from the South... that won the war for the North.

Tariffs are a tool. They are neither good nor bad. It is how one uses the tool that is good or bad.


This is what it's like when Nate is not deranged on a topic.

Blogger Durandel March 07, 2018 8:25 AM  

I second pdwalker. My friends from India say it is 3rd world, but note that places heavily occupied by the British, or places that were Catholic via the Apostle Thomas or the work of St Francis Xavier were less cruddy.

Blogger wreckage March 07, 2018 8:27 AM  

@11 "I know."
OK. I'm surprised you concede the point.

Blogger tz March 07, 2018 8:30 AM  

And lest we forget the Value Added Tax or VAT.
Our companies pay taxes here, but when they export, they are hit with a sales tax on steroids - often near 20% in the EU. Conversely when a EU company sells here, they don't pay the VAT.

We also have double, triple, quadruple taxations, like when you get a corporate dividend - which comes from money that has been taxed, and you have to pay tax on the "income".

As to Sugar subsidies, I think we also subsidized/protected Tobacco - which may be less toxic and addictive. The worst thing we have is Corn - High Fructose Corn Syrup, Ethanol, etc. There are bad Crony corrupt tariffs.

But the Tariff was/is the simplest form of tax. Consider the equivalent of a 20% VAT paid on everything entering the US based on the price charged (dollars going the other way) including the direct from China. It is easily collected, and doesn't need extensive paperwork. Yes, it can be evaded, but at a cost.

And the worst protectionism is from Big Pharma - Drugs cost less from Canada and until Obmacare you could buy from Canadian pharmacies. We are talking 1/4th or even 1/10th the cost. You could fix a lot with medicare and medicaid by simply having the US government pay what the Canadian government does for the identical drug.

Even a 20% tariff would mean huge imports (and tax revenue), or Big Pharma would have to cut prices.

Blogger Zaklog the Great March 07, 2018 8:31 AM  

Just a (hopefully) intelligent layman spinning out some thoughts here. Is it possible that limiting international trade also localizes Pareto distributions, which would lower the inequalities to some degree? In a fully globalized economy, a very, very few will have almost everything. Proportionally, this is still true in national economies, but it would be flattened slightly by the smaller number.

Does this mean anything or am I just spitting out nonsense?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2018 8:35 AM  

You will note that Nikki Haley is no longer South Carolina governor.
I always assumed that was the point of sending her to the UN.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 8:37 AM  

> it was trump who hired the son of a bitch in the first place. and he knew cohn, and he knew damn well where cohn stood on trade.

a) Cohn knew Trump's position on tariffs when he took the job.

b) You don't just hire people who agree with you. You need people who will disagree with you too, because there's always the chance that you could be wrong about something. So Cohn disagreeing with Trump about tariffs was OK. What wasn't OK was his being unwilling to accept Trump's decision when he listened to all of his advisors and made one.

c) The primary reason for the steel tariff is to protect our domestic steel industry for national security reasons. The economic effects are strictly secondary.

> It was also a pay-off to SC support to move Haley somewhere else.

Exactly.

> It was also a pay-off to SC support to move Haley somewhere else.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 8:38 AM  

> Yes, it can be evaded, but at a cost.

Free trade is legalized smuggling. :)

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 8:41 AM  

> You will note that Nikki Haley is no longer South Carolina governor.
I always assumed that was the point of sending her to the UN.

It was. In SC she could have caused problems for Trump. At the UN she has no real power. And the SC voters had had more than enough of her after the flag incident.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2018 8:41 AM  

Touching that a Goldman Sachs operative cares about what I pay at China Mart.

Any scum bucket tells me it will cost .01 cents more to drink a soda because tariffs needs a beat down because they are no doubt paid off by Pharma the biggest industrial evil of the world as of this moment.

Blogger HalibetLector March 07, 2018 8:43 AM  

On a more concrete, real-world note: my conservative boomer father-in-law is bitching about the tariff. He works for a small, independent American manufacturing plant that makes custom electric motors for industrial applications. He thinks it's going to cause the price of steel and aluminum to go up and stay there.

I have a hard time countering his argument. The cost of American labor is so much higher than it is overseas. The cost is going to be higher either way, if you buy locally or pay the tariff. Local American manufacturing is already having a hard time of it.

Could this tariff push some of the already struggling smaller to medium sized manufacturers out of business?

I'm a little surprised Trump's first tariff isn't on whole, completed goods manufactured overseas.

Blogger SemiSpook37 March 07, 2018 8:50 AM  

Fascinating discussion overall. Not all that surprising that Cohn, being a Goldman acolyte, jumped ship. When your cash flow is potentially threatened, that’s a pretty good indicator of how you’ll react when a measure like this shows up.

As someone who left a decimated manufacturing area for a more intellectually focused one, I can tell you that the grass isn’t always greener. The above discussion on 1st/2nd/3rd World opened my eyes a little more to that realization. It’s especially significant when you hear of folks having to take weeks long trips to areas like SE Asia, where it becomes increasingly apparent that the folks they’re interacting with will tacitly nod with approval to their instructions, only to promptly forget them the second that those people leave.

Not going to lie. This process of weaning off penalizing productive members of society is going to be painful, but we should be better on the other side. I just pray that the saboteurs are weeded out sooner rather than later.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 8:59 AM  

> Could this tariff push some of the already struggling smaller to medium sized manufacturers out of business?

Yes. No one says tariffs are an unalloyed good. But they're better than almost any other form of tax.

Blogger TM Lutas March 07, 2018 9:00 AM  

Based on past performance, DC is incapable of killing off taxes to replace them by different forms of taxation. Attempts to do so lead to us being saddled with both types. To the beltway, this is compromise.

It's horrible when that happens.

I think it's politically naive to think that tariff income will be converted into income tax reductions. The steel/aluminum tariffs, to pick the current case, moved the needle on income taxes exactly zero. Why would that political outcome ever change for future tariffs? Walk me through how that works up to the point where we balance the budget, which I concede might be a game changer on the subject.

We're a very long way from a balanced budget and currently without a political plan to get us there anytime soon.

Blogger Matthew March 07, 2018 9:11 AM  

Keep it on topic, dienw.

Blogger Dave March 07, 2018 9:11 AM  

So far I'm only seeing about a minute of Vox on Dialogue at 8:00 and again after 18:00 (love the background)

https://www.cgtn.com/channel/en.do

(click on Dialogue with Yang Rui @6:30)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2018 9:19 AM  

The steel/aluminum tariffs, to pick the current case, moved the needle on income taxes exactly zero.
So you missed the giant tax cut debate in December, and haven't noticed the reduced withholding yet?

Blogger Nate March 07, 2018 9:23 AM  

People... no one suggesting that tariff income will replace income tax income.

morons.

Blogger Austin Ballast March 07, 2018 9:34 AM  

This is the first time I have seen more than just the "free trade is bad" mantra. It is possible that some posts here went into those details, but the argument is better when compared against alternatives, something that is necessary to make the full point.

Put in the context of how taxes will be taken, it is stronger than just the abstract that tends to be used. That is ironically the opposite of what Bob argues for above.

Any comment on what role unions play in things? Giving more money to unions (a result of tariffs on steel) would not help the country as a whole since most unions go beyond their employees into counterproductive political causes.

Blogger Dave March 07, 2018 9:36 AM  

Vox intervals on Dialogue
8:30-10:55
18:05-20:45
24:40-26:40

Did they lose the signal after they first interval? Sort of gave that impression when he brought you back @ 18:00.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2018 9:45 AM  

It seems the world's scamconomy runs on the fact of American debt slavery fiat dollar phoniness, it is reducing America to a colony status which is fine for the oligarchs of the Globalist Occupation Government (GOG).

They facilitate the Pharma impoverishment of our country thru government dictates but they play up phony concerns thru this issue, smoke and mirrors.

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 9:56 AM  

Could this tariff push some of the already struggling smaller to medium sized manufacturers out of business?

Nobody said slave labor isn't a good business model for the individual.

Blogger Nate March 07, 2018 10:10 AM  

"Nobody said slave labor isn't a good business model for the individual."

it isn't. slaves are way more expensive than workers. that's why the slavery model was dying in the south... and its why the plantation owners that left the south and started over in Brazil did not use it when they started over.

Its cheaper just to pay really low wages and let the workers fend for themselves.

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 10:41 AM  

You're delusional.

Blogger VD March 07, 2018 10:47 AM  

Did they lose the signal after they first interval? Sort of gave that impression when he brought you back @ 18:00.

I have no idea. I didn't see anyone or have any idea what was going on. There was nothing but a voice in my ear.

The host was good. I thought the guests were smart, well-informed, and totally missing the point.

Blogger Brick Hardslab March 07, 2018 11:03 AM  

You have to start at the foundation to build a house. You need the aluminum and steel available before you build anything with it.

A possible secondary benefit would be to reinvigorate the nuclear power energy in America. We'll never build another hydropower plant in my lifetime and upgrades only get you so much. Aluminum production eats electricity.

I know it's unlikely but a guy can dream.

Blogger Nate March 07, 2018 11:08 AM  

"You're delusional."

no. i just happen to know a ton about this. For example... Slaves were very expensive. In fact in most cases a single slave was the most valuable thing a family owned.

thus... they took very good care of their slave.

When you're a slave owner you have to provide food... housing... medical care... all of that.

All of that is very expensive.

Workers don't require that. That's on them. You don't pay them enough to cover all of it? Not your problem. Its their problem.

following along yet?

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2018 11:13 AM  

There is a really good interview VD did with Ian Fletcher up in the left margin. And it covers a lot about free trade and tariffs.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 07, 2018 11:22 AM  

HalibetLector wrote:He works for a small, independent American manufacturing plant that makes custom electric motors for industrial applications. He thinks it's going to cause the price of steel and aluminum to go up and stay there.

If American motor builders really can't compete with overseas production, we probably need less regulation here and more tariff on motors coming from over there to even up the playing field. Electric motors are a necessary industry. Most industries are necessary.

Blogger Looking Glass March 07, 2018 11:29 AM  

@65 Nate

Globalists like serfs, not slaves, for this very reason. Slaves are expensive; serfs have to fend for themselves.

Blogger DonReynolds March 07, 2018 11:37 AM  

The Hot Potato is taxes. Everyone wants to shift any tax to the next buyer (and it is the default position of Libertarians that all taxes are shifted to the final consumer).

Of course, there is no "always" in economics. Depending on the elasticity of demand, a change in taxes may be shifted or they may simply be paid or it may be partial. Sometimes, more than 100 percent of taxes are shifted. Sometimes, none of the taxes are shifted and still there is a drop in the quantity demanded. All tariffs are taxes but all taxes are not tariffs. Tariffs are simply a form of tax.

Barriers to trade are not limited to tariffs. Americans have been very quick to establish standards regarding purity, safety, environmental concerns, packaging, and handling. Europeans (and Asians) have been much better at protecting local agriculture from foreign competition. Tariffs have actually become the small issue when it comes to trade barriers.

What has been happening for decades is the USA has been promoting Free Trade and nobody else has, so it has ended up being a one-way street, much to the detriment of American commerce. We have been played for suckers for years.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 11:48 AM  

@28

Forced resignations for devious subordinates who can't get with the program is EXACTLY why I saw Trump as the only clear choice as early as Sept 2015.

Blogger HalibetLector March 07, 2018 11:49 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:If American motor builders really can't compete with overseas production, we probably need less regulation here and more tariff on motors coming from over there to even up the playing field. Electric motors are a necessary industry. Most industries are necessary.

I alluded to this in my last comment. If you want to boost the local manufacturing economy, you'd want to tariff manufactured goods, not raw materials, yes? Unless Trump thinks American steel and aluminum manufacturing would take off like a hoser and drive the prices back down.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 11:54 AM  

@32
"So the GE uses people who disagree with him for obscure purposes, then gets rid of them? Do tell!...Very much like FDR...Nikki Haley is an idiot and more loyal to India and Israel than the US...It will be fun when she leaves."

I expect when Nimrata Haley leaves, her exit will be one hell of a flounce.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 11:57 AM  

@33

Look, here's how to simplify it:

Communism is (((globalist socialism))).
Libertarianism is (((globalist anti-socialism))).

Any questions?

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 12:03 PM  

@28 (again)

Ever play the game Railroad Tycoon II. In that incarnation of the game, you can hire managers. Different managers have different abilities (and hindrances). Plan on building a lot of new track? Fire your current manager, and keep firing managers until one of the 3 applicants for the position is someone who lowers construction, or at least track-laying costs by 10%, or even 20%. Not planning on doing much, just trying to ride-out a downward economic trend? Get a manager who offers significant reductions in operational costs and/or gives you an increase in passenger fare and/or commercial cargo rates, or other efficiencies.

Trump is doing the same thing.

Blogger SciVo March 07, 2018 12:04 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:Haley at the UN was a good choice. Sure, she's vane and annoying, but the UN should be treated with contempt. Though I don't think Haley gets that part. It was also a pay-off to SC support to move Haley somewhere else.

Ha! I never thought of it like that. I wondered why she was suddenly so good, it's because the task fit her temperament: "Okay, so she slags on the local culture... I know! I'll take her out of the South, and put her in the U.N. They deserve it."

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 12:07 PM  

thus... they took very good care of their slave.

Yeah that sounds like it's representative of the history of slavery, and not at all like a romantic fantasy by a butthurt loser.

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 12:08 PM  

I mean, just the fact that every society ever practiced slavery is proof that it doesn't work.

Blogger Jack Amok March 07, 2018 12:14 PM  

hen you're a slave owner you have to provide food... housing... medical care... all of that.

All of that is very expensive.

Workers don't require that. That's on them. You don't pay them enough to cover all of it? Not your problem. Its their problem.


H1-Bs, the best of both worlds! Low wages, they have to fend for themselves, plus you control their visa so they can't just go look for a higher paying job with one of your competitors.

Oh, and another benefit of H1-Bs over slaves - you had to house the slaves close enough to keep an eye on them so they didn't run away, but you can price H1-Bs out of your fancy neighborhoods and make them drive ridiculous distances to get to work.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 07, 2018 12:15 PM  

Aeoli wrote:Yeah that sounds like it's representative of the history of slavery, and not at all like a romantic fantasy by a butthurt loser.

You don't have to care about your slave to want very badly to take good care of your investment.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 12:15 PM  

@49

"On a more concrete, real-world note: my conservative boomer father-in-law is bitching about the tariff. He works for a small, independent American manufacturing plant that makes custom electric motors for industrial applications. He thinks it's going to cause the price of steel and aluminum to go up and stay there. "

Here is how I would reply to him:

Now that Americans are going to be working in productive, real-wealth producing industries again (rather than zero-sum-game service industries), that will mean that your industrial customers who make consumer products here at home are going to see an increase in sales. And factories across the country which are sitting idle and empty are going to need a LOT of motors for all of that new equipment that's going to be installed in them. This is NOT the time to grieve -- IF YOU DON'T PANIC AND FREAK OUT, then, as someone who makes a foundation-level product, TO ORDER, this is going to be the biggest bonanza of your entire life.

Blogger Jack Amok March 07, 2018 12:25 PM  

So you missed the giant tax cut debate in December, and haven't noticed the reduced withholding yet?

But, but, clearly if the income tax cuts happened before the tariffs, then the tariffs couldn't have been the cause of the income tax cuts...

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 12:28 PM  

So, tl;dr- slavery is bad business because masters tend to invest too much in the well-being of their slaves.

Yeah, I think "delusional" covered it.

Blogger VD March 07, 2018 12:31 PM  

Yeah that sounds like it's representative of the history of slavery, and not at all like a romantic fantasy by a butthurt loser.

First, you're wrong. It is absolutely representative of the history of slavery. I suggest you look up the Justinian Code and the laws for how one can and cannot legally treat one's slave.

Second, stop being an spergish dick. No one enjoys it.

Blogger SciVo March 07, 2018 12:32 PM  

Aeoli wrote:thus... they took very good care of their slave.

Yeah that sounds like it's representative of the history of slavery, and not at all like a romantic fantasy by a butthurt loser.


Look, you're both right. IIRC, as slave trading was restricted, slave life expectancies went down as prices went up, because they had to be worked into an early grave to justify the expense. But by the same token, slaves were not disposable in America, which (completely unlike most of the world history of slavery) did not have an effectively unlimited supply roaming free-range next door.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 12:39 PM  

@69

"All tariffs are taxes but all taxes are not tariffs."

ALL TAXES are not tariffs?

Do you even read what you write?


Where in the hell did this moronic locution come from, when describing the situation that some B are not A, and Some B are A, writing "All B are not A"... that means NO B are A.

Here's the Venn Diagram:

---X--- = boundary of group X


+---B---+
| |
| +-A-+ |
| | | |
| +-A-+ |
| |
+--B----+

Here is what you wrote:

"All Tariffs [A] are Taxes [B], but All Taxes [B] are not Tariffs [A]"

Dude, you're saying that Set A is a subset of set B, and then saying that every single members of Set B is not a member of set A.

Do you even logic, bro?

Blogger FP March 07, 2018 12:45 PM  

@42

"And the worst protectionism is from Big Pharma - Drugs cost less from Canada and until Obmacare you could buy from Canadian pharmacies. We are talking 1/4th or even 1/10th the cost. You could fix a lot with medicare and medicaid by simply having the US government pay what the Canadian government does for the identical drug."

The feds already know this. Most of congress is bought off or too scared to face the short term consequences of ending the big pharma monopolies. Even the taco supreme court a few years ago ruled against text book publishers who wanted to make it illegal to reimport cheap text books from Asia back to the US. But it is a federal felony to import cheap drugs from all over the world. $100 scorpion anti-venom made in Mexico costs $30k in a US hospital.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 12:46 PM  

Since the Ascii Art didn't work propery, let me describe it, and try again.

Box A is a box wholly enclosed within Box B


+---B---+
| |
| +-A-+ |
| | | |
| +-A-+ |
| |
+---B---+

Blogger Ahärôwn March 07, 2018 12:48 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@13


Currently, the price of sugar in the U.S. is significantly higher than in Canada (which produces none of its own sugar -- wrong climate). U.S. has a really high tariff on sugar to keep our domestic sugar producers in that business -- they literally can't compete with Cuban, Jamaican, etc. sugar plantations. Sugar cane LOOOOVES heat, humidity, and lots of direct sun. The rationale for the protectionism is that sugar is a critical wartime product, and so we want a base of sugar producers in the event of a large war.



Canada, having no hope of producing their own sugar, puts no tariff on sugar imports, because doing so would accomplish nothing but pissing off voters.

In this case, Canada loses nothing in exchange for free trade in sugar, but if we were to allow free trade in sugar, the cost would be that we completely lose our sugar industry -- or the cost would be fighting a war to invade some sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean, and either holding the islands as a U.S. territory, or installing and propping up a puppet government.


Canada does have a tariff, albeit a very small one:

http://www.sugar.ca/International-Trade/Canada-s-sugar-policy.aspx

90% of our sugar production comes from sugar cane. The other 10% comes from sugar beets, which can be grown in cold climates, and in fact there's a plant in Alberta that processes sugar beets. Sugar is cheap here, though, and is one of the reasons we have sugar in most products, like pop, rather than high-fructose corn syrup as in the U.S, which comes from highly subsidized corn.

However, if Canada decided to raise tariffs on sugarcane, it would not surprise me to see more of a sugar-beet industry in the country.

Blogger bw March 07, 2018 12:50 PM  

(((buh-bye)))

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 12:55 PM  

Aeoli...

Read what happened to the emancipated slaves after the Civil War. Almost universally, they became sharecroppers on THE EXACT SAME PLANTATIONS WHERE THEY HAD BEEN SLAVES....their standard of living and life expectancy actually fell, and their mortality rate went up.

Life as a sharecropper is actually worse than life as a slave.

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 12:57 PM  

Lol, this is rich.

1. Slavery is bad for business because
2. Masters invest too much in the well-being of their slaves, which we know is in their economic interest because
3. Christian societies had to make laws to enforce this, which makes sense because the point of making laws is to enforce self-interested behaviors people are already doing.

Second, stop being an spergish dick. No one enjoys it.

Being nice is my natural state. If it was effective, I'd be POTUS already.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 1:00 PM  

Aeoli, slavery was already dying due to economic inefficiency before the war. This is acknowledged by everyone on all sides of the debate.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 1:04 PM  

"ROOTS" was propaganda, not a documentary.

Whipping of slaves was extremely rare -- a man who has half the skin torn off his back isn't going to do ANY work for you, and you still have to feed him. Pretty much the only reason to whip a slave was for successful escape (upon return), or violent acts (against anyone, including fellow slaves).

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 1:10 PM  

Let's retrace to the OP: Tariffs hurt the small business owners relying on overseas slave labor. This is okay with me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2018 1:12 PM  

Beet sugar is a huge industry in the inter-mountain West, and Minnesota is the largest sugar producer in the nation.
Sugar tariffs are high because the sugar producers want it and the corn growers and processors want it. Iowa has an absurdly large effect on US policy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2018 1:18 PM  

We all know slavery was the worstest thing ever and therefore it could nit have been relatively inefficient or higher cost than serfdom or wage slavery.
Duh....

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 07, 2018 1:20 PM  

Aeoli wrote:Let's retrace to the OP: Tariffs hurt the small business owners relying on overseas slave labor. This is okay with me.

Me, too. Especially since the small business owners' plight is not only self-inflicted, but temporary.

After the dislocations and adjustments are over, the affected small business owners will be able to find new opportunities selling to newly-employed Americans who have jobs because they are no longer competing with overseas slave labor.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 07, 2018 1:22 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Beet sugar is a huge industry in the inter-mountain West, and Minnesota is the largest sugar producer in the nation.

I keep wanting to try growing sugar beets here at 64 North. Someday I'll make time for that. If they do well in cold soil, we could give Minnesota some serious competition.

Blogger Aeoli March 07, 2018 1:28 PM  

Me, too. Especially since the small business owners' plight is not only self-inflicted, but temporary.

After the dislocations and adjustments are over, the affected small business owners will be able to find new opportunities selling to newly-employed Americans who have jobs because they are no longer competing with overseas slave labor.


Right, higher standard of living all around, less self-interested parasitism by feudalists.

Blogger DonReynolds March 07, 2018 1:43 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@69

"All tariffs are taxes but all taxes are not tariffs."

ALL TAXES are not tariffs?

Do you even read what you write?

Where in the hell did this moronic locution come from, when describing the situation that some B are not A, and Some B are A, writing "All B are not A"... that means NO B are A.

Here's the Venn Diagram:

---X--- = boundary of group X

+---B---+

| |

| +-A-+ |

| | | |

| +-A-+ |

| |

+--B----+

Here is what you wrote:

"All Tariffs [A] are Taxes [B], but All Taxes [B] are not Tariffs [A]"

Dude, you're saying that Set A is a subset of set B, and then saying that every single members of Set B is not a member of set A.

Do you even logic, bro?


Yes, bro....
Tariffs are a subset of taxes....but not the only taxes.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit March 07, 2018 2:17 PM  

I notice that Vox Day's interlocutor did not appear to notice that President Trump did both: Lowered income taxes and raised tariffs, while complaining that the tariff made no sense as relief w/out lowered taxes.

Funny.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 2:17 PM  

"Not All X are Y"

and

"All X are Not Y"

are completely different statements.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2018 2:26 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:"Not All X are Y" and "All X are Not Y" are completely different statements.
No, they are not, if the "not" associates with the "are" rather than the the "Y"
It's not entirely clear, given the not-as-standard word order, but within context, it is. Contract "are not" to "aren't" and you will achieve enlightenment.

And stop sperging.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 3:41 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 3:43 PM  

All X = NOT Y is

and

NOT ALL X = Y

are not the same.

NOT ALL X ARE Y is the same as SOME X ARE Y

ALL X are NOT Y is the same NO X ARE Y

This isn't difficult. It's standard freakin' English.



As for context... the only context is -- Speaker or Writer doesn't comprehend the rules of logical expression in English.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 3:44 PM  

> Do you even logic, bro?

The complexities of the English language are not containable by the subset of symbolic logic Dirk.

It the terms you're using, he said the equivalent of not all taxes are tariffs. But what he said makes perfect sense in English and is a perfectly acceptable form for saying it. As Snidely notes, you're insisting on associating the not with taxes when it's clear that the intended association is with are.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 3:47 PM  

That is the most insane locution I have ever seen for

Only Some X are Y.

And it was NEVER used to mean Only Some X are Y until around the time Millenials started graduating from High School. You two aren't millenials, are you?

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 3:48 PM  

> This isn't difficult. It's standard freakin' English.

No, what you're arguing is standard symbolic logic. What he is using is standard English.

In programing speak, what he said is (all x != y), not (all x = not y).

You may not like that the English language can be used that way, but it's a perfectly valid and accepted usage.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 07, 2018 3:49 PM  

And no, when it comes to logic, two interpretations for the same thing fundamentally violates the whole purpose of having logical statements -- to wit: that they can be interpreted one, and ONLY one way.

Why?

Because IT's ABOUT COMMUNICATION...and making two possible interpretations for a logical statement completely destroys the whole idea that you're communicating a logical statement.

This isn't hard. You're just both excusing mental laziness.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 3:50 PM  

> And it was NEVER used to mean Only Some X are Y until around the time Millenials started graduating from High School.

It's been used that way my entire life, and I'll be sixty later this year. If you look you can probably find some such usage by Shakespeare. Simply put, you're wrong.

Blogger James Dixon March 07, 2018 3:52 PM  

> This isn't hard. You're just both excusing mental laziness.

Nope, we just know the English language better than you do. It doesn't always follow logical forms and sometimes a sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways with entirely different meanings. Sometimes those entirely different meanings are even intended by the writer.

Blogger VD March 07, 2018 4:13 PM  

You're sperging, Dirk. Stop it. Logic is not communication. Communication is not logic.

If you are truly logical, you should be able to grasp that.

Blogger FUBARwest March 07, 2018 7:22 PM  

Thank you Dave

OpenID paulmurray March 08, 2018 7:51 PM  

> “the most obvious way to realize that tariffs make a country poorer is to realize that tariffs are taxes on domestic citizens, not on foreign producers”

Weird. These people seem to think that taxes just plain vanish, that once the government collects the money it simply evaporates along with the wealth that money represents.

The government spends it, pays wages with it, pays out treasury bills, the money re-enters the economy.

Blogger Thomas March 10, 2018 11:08 AM  

So long as its not the South exclusively paying the tariffs its fine.

Blogger wreckage March 11, 2018 6:39 AM  

Where the tariffs should fall depends on a couple of factors. If the expectation of their net effect. If, net, they are expected to stimulate, then they should be as low down the production hierarchy as possible, ie, raw materials.

Raw materials shipped in bulk will be much, much easier to administer, and almost impossible to smuggle.

The incidence of the tariff will change according to flexibility of supply or of demand. As a general rule, commodities sellers are price-takers, so there's a possibility this tariff either pushes some of the incidence off the USA, or at least retains a perfect split (commodities also approach perfect competition.)

And it is also possible that this is calculated to minimize the effect on final sale prices and thereby on the consumer. 25% on the steel that goes into, say, your refrigerator, is much much less expense to the individual consumer, than 25% of the refrigerator.

So, even within pretty conventional assumptions, this is pretty well thought out: it's a simple, easily administered, broad and low tax.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts