Whats wrong with an import tax?

[Zorkorist]

Welcome to Solar City. Can I get you a tall Coffee with frothed Leche?

-John

 

[Acanthus]

Wow, look at all dem "financial instruments".

United States:
Industrial production growth rate:
-5.5% (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 116

GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.2%
industry: 21.9%
services: 76.9% (2009 est.)

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

I like your series of images though.

The old truck that doesnt represent today.
A truck from a bankrupt american car company that has now merged with a european one to avoid liquidation.
2 pictures of cities.
A picture of an old plane.
A picture of an Airbus A380... Which is not an American product.
A pic of a Suzuki motorcycle...

I'm not sure that you've made your point.

The only images i agree with are the carrier pictures. Military hardware is our big export that still stands.

 

[drebo]

I never see that mentioned in here, never see it in the news. Why don't we impose a tax on imports? While I can see some issues with it, there is a lot to be said for bringing some of our exported jobs back home.

Import tariffs are fine. Protective tariffs are not.

The US is not idealy suited to produce every single good we need for our daily life. Forcing everything to be made here (protective tariffs) are extremely bad for the economy.

Setting tariffs on imports for other reasons, though, is not necessarily bad. They cannot be unilateral, though. Nor can they be so high as to stifle trade.

For the record, I think that NAFTA is one of the worst policies we've ever entered into.

 

[gingermeggs]

We damned well do tax imports all the time:


USDA Tariff schedule
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/us-tariff-sch.asp

US Tariff and Duty Rates
http://usaexportimport.com/usa-tariffs-duty-rates.php

US International Trade Comission
http://www.dataweb.usitc.gov/


...and links to a copy of the official "Harmonized Tariff Schedule"
http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/


They use the term "Harmonized" because the different countries negotiate what rates will be charged on what imported/exported goods.

Funny that he doesn't know how many ways the usa is using it's consumer power ATM, MOSTLY to the detriment of every other country that trades with them.

Agriculture in the usa is hugely subsidized, but in 2012 the wto fta is to lift all subsides. Then your truly screwed as an economy. Because the USA can't compete on so many levels, most of them basic to modern human existence.
There has to come the day when the Us MARKET isn't pursued, because it's debt cannot be honored.

 

[K1052]

That was tried during the Great Depression (Smoot–Hawley) and was a huge disaster which worsened and lengthened the depression.

 

[K1052]

Funny that he doesn't know how many ways the usa is using it's consumer power ATM, MOSTLY to the detriment of every other country that trades with them.

Agriculture in the usa is hugely subsidized, but in 2012 the wto fta is to lift all subsides. Then your truly screwed as an economy. Because the USA can't compete on so many levels, most of them basic to modern human existence.
There has to come the day when the Us MARKET isn't pursued, because it's debt cannot be honored.

IIRC, European subsidies to farms total more than twice ours. Prices will rise a little but we are by no means screwed.

 

[Acanthus]

There is a problem with arguing that protectionism "stifles trade"

That problem is, we need to stifle trade with our 3 largest trading partners... because they all pay slave wages.

You can make it a competitive rate based on the disparity between the standard of living that the nations trade we trade with have... Or we can even get bureaucratic and make all corporations with more than 1000 employees overseas report their average pay in each nation on a bi-yearly basis. You can then use that information to calculate import taxes based on the disparity between domestic and overseas wages.

I am not talking about protectionism that walls us in from trade. I'm talking about protectionism that walls us in having slaves overseas that destroy millions of jobs at home.

 

[K1052]

That problem is, we need to stifle trade with our 3 largest trading partners... because they all pay slave wages.

Canada and the EU pay "slave wages" ?

 

[Jiggz]

I never see that mentioned in here, never see it in the news. Why don't we impose a tax on imports? While I can see some issues with it, there is a lot to be said for bringing some of our exported jobs back home.

Because it only gets passed to the consumers who will end up paying more! Believe it not as a nation of consumers, we consume more imports than local products because we manufacture less. Just about everything we consume except maybe some agricultural products is imports!

 

[Acanthus]

Canada and the EU pay "slave wages" ?

Well Canada is an exception.

Import Partners - United States
China 19.3%, Canada 14.24%, Mexico 11.12%, Japan 6.14%, Germany 4.53% (2009)

The reason India is not listed is because we don't import "hard goods" from India in quantity. The vast majority of our job losses in India are related to call centers and other remote support staff.

Trends show that all 3 of the big 3 "cheap labor nations" have increased trade deficits with us in 2010.

 

[Acanthus]

Because it only gets passed to the consumers who will end up paying more! Believe it not as a nation of consumers, we consume more imports than local products because we manufacture less. Just about everything we consume except maybe some agricultural products is imports!

This is false, just like the fallacy that outsourcing labor causes prices to fall.

Prices stay the same and profitability of the corporations that control outsourced labor change. This makes our companies with domestic employees more competitive.

 

[dank69]

This is false, just like the fallacy that outsourcing labor causes prices to fall.

Prices stay the same and profitability of the corporations that control outsourced labor change. This makes our companies with domestic employees more competitive.

That doesn't even make sense. When a corp. reduces costs by outsourcing labor, they don't necessarily lower their product pricing. I agree with you on that point. They will just turn bigger profits because they price according to demand/competition.

If their costs go up, due to tariffs or whatever, it is highly likely they will need to raise their prices. Profit margins are already pretty tight in competetive markets. A new tariff could easily be higher than the current profit margin on a product and what do you think the corp is going to just sell everything at a loss?

Just look at cigarettes for a simple, common sense example. When the government raises the sin tax on them do the cigarette prices stay the same?

 

[fskimospy]

Well Canada is an exception.

Import Partners - United States
China 19.3%, Canada 14.24%, Mexico 11.12%, Japan 6.14%, Germany 4.53% (2009)

The reason India is not listed is because we don't import "hard goods" from India in quantity. The vast majority of our job losses in India are related to call centers and other remote support staff.

Trends show that all 3 of the big 3 "cheap labor nations" have increased trade deficits with us in 2010.

Well that seems to be cherry picking in some ways, as if you count the EU as one entity for trade purposes (not an unreasonable assumption) then they are our largest trading partner. In that case 2 out of our top 3 trade partners pay comparable wages to the US.

I just don't think that the wage argument justifies trade barriers.

 

[Acanthus]

Well that seems to be cherry picking in some ways, as if you count the EU as one entity for trade purposes (not an unreasonable assumption) then they are our largest trading partner. In that case 2 out of our top 3 trade partners pay comparable wages to the US.

I just don't think that the wage argument justifies trade barriers.

Well canada and mexico make sense due to proximity.

India and China have such a cheap labor pool that it is cheaper to ship goods HALFWAY AROUND THE EARTH and still have a cost savings... That is a problem.

You a mountain of inefficiency that circles around circumventing price floors on wages.

The two arguments are basically:
1. American wages should fall
2. 3rd world wages should rise or the labor pool should be excluded until such time that a reasonable wage is paid... Or other disincentives.

Also consider that I endorse free trade with nations that compensate their employees fairly. I do not in any way support tariffs on the EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, ETC.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I like your series of images though.

The old truck that doesnt represent today.
A truck from a bankrupt american car company that has now merged with a european one to avoid liquidation.
2 pictures of cities.
A picture of an old plane.
A picture of an Airbus A380... Which is not an American product.
A pic of a Suzuki motorcycle...

I'm not sure that you've made your point.

Pics of the 1930's vs today, as per your population numbers. Everything built under fiat currency systems. So, where's the downslope in real purchasing power?

I've got a 160MPH car with heated seats and a sound system that can set off bank alarms, a 165MPH bike, a solid oak bedroom set with oh-so-comfortable mattress sporting 400 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets and lightweight yet toasty warm blankets, an insanely comfortable couch and loveseat that have 4 recliners between them, 62" and 32" HDTV's both with DVRs, cupboards full of safe food, indoor plumbing with hot water, fluffy towels, two-ply toilet paper, high speed internet, 100 CD's, a couple hundred books, warm clothes, solid shoes, refrigerator/freezer, washer/dryer, electric stove and oven, gas grill, nonstick cookware, electric lights, 10,000 watt generator, my clocks frickin' update themselves, access to million-dollar medical equipment, all bought by a wage slave... and none of this is due to improvements over cottage industry?

 

[ShawnD1]

The US is not idealy suited to produce every single good we need for our daily life. Forcing everything to be made here (protective tariffs) are extremely bad for the economy.

This is very true. I'm pretty sure Canada has some high ass import taxes. Everything is crazy expensive. The country is doing pretty good right now and is sitting at a trade surplus, but it does come at a cost.

It's a bit of a toss up. Either you have high wages and expensive goods or you have low wages and cheap goods. One way doesn't seem like it's any better or worse than the other for the average consumer. Import taxes are arguably bad for the global economy because they reduce the amount of trade going in both directions.

 

[Acanthus]

Pics of the 1930's vs today, as per your population numbers. Everything built under fiat currency systems. So, where's the downslope in real purchasing power?

I've got a 160MPH car with heated seats and a sound system that can set off bank alarms, a 165MPH bike, a solid oak bedroom set with oh-so-comfortable mattress sporting 400 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets and lightweight yet toasty warm blankets, an insanely comfortable couch and loveseat that have 4 recliners between them, 62" and 32" HDTV's both with DVRs, cupboards full of safe food, indoor plumbing with hot water, fluffy towels, two-ply toilet paper, high speed internet, 100 CD's, a couple hundred books, warm clothes, solid shoes, refrigerator/freezer, washer/dryer, electric stove and oven, gas grill, nonstick cookware, electric lights, 10,000 watt generator, my clocks frickin' update themselves, access to million-dollar medical equipment, all bought by a wage slave... and none of this is due to improvements over cottage industry?

Your point seems to indicate that technological advances are somehow due to free trade with 3rd world nations?

And a "wage slave" does not equal "slave labor wages" they are not even similar terminology.

When i talk about slave labor wages... I'm talking about the labor we exploit overseas. People there can't afford a single thing in your list of luxuries... and their jobs are replacing yours.

 

[Zorkorist]

Well canada and mexico make sense due to proximity.

India and China have such a cheap labor pool that it is cheaper to ship goods HALFWAY AROUND THE EARTH and still have a cost savings... That is a problem.

You a mountain of inefficiency that circles around circumventing price floors on wages.

The two arguments are basically:
1. American wages should fall
2. 3rd world wages should rise or the labor pool should be excluded until such time that a reasonable wage is paid... Or other disincentives.

Also consider that I endorse free trade with nations that compensate their employees fairly. I do not in any way support tariffs on the EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, ETC.

I heard President Obama state your viewpoint #2 on the radio today. He called it unfair (I'm paraphrasing) for China to do so well in the World Economy, while their citizens are not at our standard of living. He said that China needs to divert energy from driving business to "subsidizing" their citizens. He said we need to "balance" our economies.

Balance the world's economies?

This is our President, the President of the United States, asking for balance?

We have never once in our lives asked for balance. We have always been the entrepenuer, the free spirit, the leader of global capitalism, the most productive country in the world.

And now, President Obama is asking for balance?!

Truly scary, and in my opinion a direct result of our turn towards Federalism, Socialism, and Environmentalism. Government regulation, laws, and taxes have brought us to the point where we are asking China to "balance" us.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11731664

Yet, no one country can achieve our joint objective of a strong, sustainable, and balanced recovery on its own.

-John

 

[sandorski]

Just to get this straight, you free trade faithfuls are still clinging to the claim that fewer international trade barriers have helped this country economically? Really? You really don't hear that giant sucking sound do you?

Free Trade isn't the problem, Multi-National Corporations are. Especially when their Modus Operandi is to simply move their Production around in order to take advantage of Labour, Regulation, or some other factor.

What to do to fix this situation is a big challenge and I really don't know how to fix it. That said, it may eventually fix itself through Developement of the Third World into something akin to moving them closer to the First World. That will take many generations to accomplish though. This assumes that a number of looming issues don't cause everything to fall to pieces. Eventually though, I could see a system develop where most Domestic Need is Produced Domestically and the only Imports being more Specialized where it simply can't be done Economically without a centralized base of operations.

An exaggerated example of this: The US is a large enough Domestic Market that practically all Auto Manufacturing could be done Domestically by all the Auto Manufacturers, with exception to certain ones like Ferrari or other Exotic Auto Manufacturers whose Sales numbers are very small(Technology could make this feasible, I'm assuming relatively similar conditions to the present). OTOH, Lichtenstein is just too small of a Domestic Market to support even 1 Auto Factory.

Many new Products will be introduced in the meantime though, so it's not like the First World will need to just dwindle away while the Third World is developing. This is where National Policy can play a big role. For those Technologies that have been developed with the help of Public Facilities(Labs, Universities, etc) and/or direct Funding, Governments should require a certain return through having the Manufacture of said Research be done Domestically for Export, for a period of time anyway.

 

[Zorkorist]

That may be the most stupid post I have ever read.

It seems like something straight out of "Atlas Shrugged," when the Government is trying to decide what is right for the people.

-John

 

[fskimospy]

That may be the most stupid post I have ever read.

It seems like something straight out of "Atlas Shrugged," when the Government is trying to decide what is right for the people.

-John

Well, just about the entirety of "Atlas Shrugged" could fall under 'one of the stupidest things I've ever read'. I mean not only are the ideas in it dumb, but it's written like an 8th grader did it.

 

[Zorkorist]

Ayn Rand, would be a God, if she (or I) believed in Gods.



It's OK, Eskimo... you can admit to not getting her philosophy, and attack her writing style, etc.

Just don't try and get me to build Gothic SkyScrapers.

Edit: which is what Sandorski, in the post above wants... Gothic Skyscrapers. IE., demand a stop to progress in one world, China, for the sake of a disadvantaged world, The United States of America.

Can't we all be equalled, and balanced?

Can't we build a skyscraper, but put a Gothic facade out front?

-John

 

[Acanthus]

So you dislike the thought of a recovery that doesn't follow the historical precedent?

Every recession in the last 40 years has lead to the top grabbing a few more % of the pie. That is what Obama is talking about avoiding.

 

[Zorkorist]

Are you speaking to me Acanthus?

I'm against any recovery that involves "balancing" with China.

All of our previous recoveries we have completed ourself.

Winners and losers of an economic recovery are just that, winners and losers. Just like during economic good times, there are winners and losers.

The only thing that is different in this situation, is President Obama going to the Chinese and asking them for a "balanced" solution.

The Chinese have never been part of our situation, but now they rule.

President Obama, will probably be willing to pay them a percent for a "balanced" recovery.

Is that what you are asking?

How America cannot pull itself out of a recession? How we can't beat China in the trade war? How our debt is insurmountable? How children today have little to look forward to other than being "contributing members of society?"

Where's the American Dream? Is it now "balanced?"

-John

 

[sandorski]

Are you talking to me Acanthus?

I'm against any recovery that involves "balancing" with China.

All of our previous recoveries we have completed ourself.

Winners and losers of an economic recovery are just that, winners and losers. Just like during economic good times, there are winners and losers.

The only thing that is different in this situation, is President Obama going to the Chinese and asking them for a "balanced" solution.

The Chinese have never been part of our situation, but now they rule.

Obama, will probably be willing to pay them a percent for "balanced" recovery.

Is that what you are asking?

How America cannot pull itself out of a recession? How we can't beat China in the trade war? How our debt is insurmountable? How children today have little to look forward to today, rather than being "contributing members of society?"

-John

So is Obama.