TARIFFS….help me out here!

Anybody know enough about TARIFFS to tell us how you’d feel America would do without them?

Which ideology, Dems or Reps, would like or not like them the most?

I’m intrigued by the idea…..Pros?  Cons?     TELL ME!

Z

Advertisements
This entry was posted in tariffs. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to TARIFFS….help me out here!

  1. People bring up Smoot-Hawley as the precursor to the Great Depression.
    Many things were the precursor to the Great Depression.
    The thing to remember about the Great Depression is that it would not have been as bad as it was had it not been for FDR policies that kept us from coming back, much like eight years under Obama.
    However, Smoot-Hawley was a rather broad set of tariffs that were to “protect” American industry.
    To stop stuff from coming in.
    It seems that the tariffs that Trump are promoting are to help American goods reach markets outside the US by encouraging other nations to lower or remove THEIR tariffs.
    Negotiating.
    Might they harm us?
    Some of us, if implemented.
    But if the other guy blinks, all of us are helped.
    That’s my take.
    The problem is that it changes the rules and many people planned their financial positions on those rules.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mustang says:

    The only reason nations trade with one another is that they each agree that another nation has something they want or need. One problem, however, is that there are far too many US “trade experts” who believe that America can afford to tolerate unfair trade practices because we are, after all, filthy rich. Let me also note that this same kind of thinking is why American elderly (and taxpayers) pay premium prices for life-sustaining drugs, while people living in Africa get them for free. America’s elderly are filthy rich by African standards, and besides, they have Medicare. It is total garbage. Who subscribes to this globalist-socialist attitude most? Democrats.

    There is nothing wrong with imposing tariffs if, for example, the US government wanted to protect domestic industries or workers. Another problem is that when government erects barriers to trade, it runs the risk of making domestic industries less efficient … since with tariffs there is less “competition.” In my view, there are only two good reasons to impose tariffs: first, because a so-called trading partner is not dealing on the square, or second, because it is in the national interests to protect a domestic good.

    But there are other issues that affect this discussion. American wine producers aren’t competing with French wine producers for market-share; they are competing against French government subsidies that make French wine more affordable to consumers. But one wonders, what are we Americans protecting? We don’t dominate the automobile industry any more, we don’t make refrigerators and washing machines, TVs or radios, and China owns the market on plastic ware …

    The US would not need to impose tariffs if the WTO was worth the money we’ve invested into it (through the UN); how is it possible for China to dump its steel, or Canada dump its timber without the WTO issuing stern penalties? The answer is that the WTO is an anti-American consortium of globalists who would like nothing more than to see the USA come out on the short end of the stick.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. bocopro says:

    A tariff is simply a sales tax placed on a specific manufactured item or service by a government for the purpose of protecting a domestic industry offering similar goods or services.

    Generally the idea is to give a growing or inefficient business some breathing room and allow it to be competitive with foreign goods or services, some of which might be subsidized by their own government.

    Basically a tariff system should promote fair trade, but the bottom line is that the consumer ALWAYS winds up paying the fee, and high tariff walls tend to inhibit or stifle trade, generally depriving consumers of what they want or need while restricting free trade.

    Monopolies and government subsidies often set up “dumping” situations in which a country overproducing a commodity has too much of the stuff and needs to get rid of it. But generally what comprehensive, high tariffs do is reduce competition, thereby slowing product improvement and raising prices. In most cases, tariffs wind up costing the imposing nation more than they’re worth in growth for domestic industries.

    So . . . free trade stimulates product improvement and stabilizes prices, but punitive tariffs inhibit trade, stall development, increase taxes, and promote recession. Basically, any law or tax or rule on a wide scale which slows international trade reduces economic growth.

    But THIS . . . this is ridiculous:

    http://gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com/image/174818505192

    Like

  4. Bocopro: Great pic and post.
    Mustang: Great post.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. bunkerville says:

    Tariffs are what ran our government until and when the income tax was implemented. Henny Penney the sky is not falling for my point of view. As a point of fact U.S. already imposes over 12,000 tariffs on imports

    https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2018/03/12/u-s-already-imposes-over-12000-tariffs-on-imports/

    State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, permanently legalizing an income tax.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Kid says:

    I can’t add anything to the tariff discussion but would like to add that 1913 was a very bad yar for Americans. The Fed Reserve was also created turning the American population into a sheep farm to be continually sheared of its wealth.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Sparky says:

    I was gonna say pretty much what Bunkerville stated. I do believe that tariff’s are part of the US Constitution? And that was suppose to be the ONLY tax that sustained the Federal government. That’s what ran the Fed’s before the tyrant FDR took over and wanted to be King.

    Like

  8. geeez2014 says:

    Ed ..you said “It seems that the tariffs that Trump are promoting are to help American goods reach markets outside the US by encouraging other nations to lower or remove THEIR tariffs.” Clearly, that’s what he wants. …as do most of us! Yes, some tariffs will hurt us, no doubt, but I believe things could even out somehow.

    Mustang, your point about subsidies (wine, etc.) is one I hadn’t thought of and it’s a hugely important one. What do you envision the WTO doing if they actually put America on its list of countries which should be treated fairly! I’d like to know what could be done…

    Bocopro…so you’re for total stopping of tariffs? Good poster there!

    Bunkerville, tariffs paid for our country to run before taxes??

    Sparky..CONSTITUTION? That I’d like to look into!

    Kid, sad but great line about SHEEP…

    Like

  9. bocopro says:

    “total stopping of tariffs?”

    No. Only way I’d go with total elimination would hafta be universal, global. But when tariffs impede or stifle FAIR trade, somethin’s gotta be done about it, ’cause we can’t afford to be both Globocop and Uncle Sugar.

    We need protection for industry, for research, for resource management, and so on, but only where and when necessary to allow a fledgling to get its wings or a cripple to get back on its feet and operate without crutches.

    Then when an industry or a business proves that it can’t survive in a fair market or compete on its own because of management problems, it should be allowed to die naturally without the false security of endless stimuli and/or subsidies.

    Only problem with that is other nations’ unwillingness to play by the same set of rules.

    Like

  10. Mal says:

    We put up with the imbalance trade deficit and tariffs after WW ll because we were in the best shape (no bombed cities, etc) and it remained that way up to now. But like Mustang said, we no longer are the primary manufacturer of cars, fridges, and T.V’s. This is exactly why we needed a businessman as POTUS instead of Poly-Sci or LLD majors……and boy! Did we get one!
    Another point: Our education system needs a major revamping. We attended graduation ceremonies this last weekend at Loma Linda Univ. in So. Calif. where 1,500 students graduated. They began the ceremonies by bragging about the number of countries represented (around 30 or so) with all the flags on the stage. Very few grads were caucasian or American. When I look at the index of our local medical centers, most are foreign names from India, Pakistan, China, Korea, etc. etc. We are failing our kids tremendously.
    One of our grandsons graduated with a doctorate in psychology and has been offered a fellowship at the University. He is 34 and has accumulated student loans of around $325,000. If he stays with them and pays on his loan for 10 years, the balance will be forgiven. He would be 44 when his loans are paid off. (If he accepts a position in Alaska, it would be forgiven in only 2 years). We can no longer afford to bear the financial burden of the world and Trump knows this. Now, if only the left would accept this fact.

    Like

  11. bunkerville says:

    In the United States, the first tariff levied by our government (meaning outside of those nasty British tariffs) was adopted in 1789. The not-so-cleverly named Tariff Act of 1789 had, as its primary goals exactly the reasons as stated earlier: money and protectionism. It was spelled out as such in the Act, saying:

    Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise…

    That same year, the Treasury was charged with administering tariff laws. However, that role eventually would fall to the U.S. Customs Bureau, which was dissolved in 2003 in favor of the newly created Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

    Initially, the duty – meaning the money paid as a result of the tariffs – was defined as one of three kinds:

    Specific duty;
    Ad valorem duty; or
    Duty-free treatment.
    A specific duty is a fixed amount of money that does not vary with the price of the goods. An example of a specific duty would be a tax of $10 per pound of sugar. In 1789, those specific duties were initially imposed on 36 goods, including beer, wine, and spirits, molasses, salt, and sugar, tobacco, tea, and coffee. If that sounds like mostly good stuff, you’re right. It was considered a luxury tax aimed at the wealthy.

    An ad valorem duty is calculated as a fixed percentage of the value of the goods. An example of a specific ad valorem duty would be a tax of 20% on the value of cotton. In 1789, the ad valorem duties of 5-15% were imposed on most imports not otherwise excluded from tax and included china, stone, and glassware.

    A duty-free treatment is exactly what it sounds like: those goods got a pass and were not taxed. In 1789, those included certain metals like brass and tinplates, iron and brass wire, cotton and wool, hides, furs, and skins.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/01/as-trump-talks-tariffs-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#77dea76195a1

    Like

  12. bunkerville says:

    Prior to ratification of the 16th (income tax) Amendment in February 1913, the federal government managed its few constitutional responsibilities without an income tax, except during the Civil War period. During peacetime, it did so largely — or even entirely — on import taxes called “tariffs.”
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

    Like

  13. geeez2014 says:

    Bunkerville, thanks..I knew that income taxes came relatively late to America but I didn’t realize tariffs paid for a lot.
    You really helped me understand in that response to my question…..I just don’t see the world’s powers acting fairly, even if Trump DOES!

    Mal is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT…we Americans helped Europe after WWII with the tariff situation….time’s UP! I think they’ve pretty much caught up by NOW 🙂 And yes, we are badly failing our kids. I heard a report yesterday, Mal, where WOMEN are graduating universities more than men are and how that’s really dangerous to them because women leave the work force to have CHILDREN……delaying their ability to pay loans back. SOMEBODY’s going to take that in the shorts BIG TIME.

    Like

  14. geeez2014 says:

    Did you all know that Nicole Wallace, a former White House communications director under President George W. Bush, is a host on MSNBC? Bush can pick ’em, huh?

    Apparently, she “had a hard time keeping it together (laughing so hard) so she played the clip a second time.” of Trump talking about what kind of condos could be built on the No Korea shores….“I (Trump) said, ‘Boy, look at the view. Wouldn’t that make a great condo behind?’ And I explained, I said, ‘You know, instead of doing that, you could have the best hotels in the world right there. Think of it from a real estate perspective.’”

    Ya, that gives the leftwingers a laugh, how could it not? We go from NoKo threatening us with nukes to building condos on their beaches!?? 🙂 BUT, I think that as much as I’m not sure he’s THAT adept at this stuff, it would certainly appeal to Chairman Kim! Just better to tell KIM that, not our leftwing insulting hideous media. GeeeeeZ

    Like

  15. geeez2014 says:

    MAL! So a REPUBLICAN PIMP in your state won his primary? A PIMP who says he’s a REPUBLICAN!? OY!!! That should make the media happy for a few hours 🙂

    Like

  16. geeez2014 says:

    The more I think of Trump saying condos on No Ko’s beaches would be nice, the more I envision Kim licking his chops and thinking “Man! if I give up nukes, I’ll have tourism $$$, construction projects $$$, prestige, people working $$$$, food $$$, ” and whatever the Korean version of “YIPPPEEEE!” is….AND be “part of the return to world peace” Trump’s telling him he could be. Trump’s a good negotiator…FLATTERY GETS YOU EVERYWHERE 🙂 “he’s nice, he’s friendly, he’s very bright”…Think Kim didn’t like hearing THOSE things?
    Sadly, the left’s using it BIG (HUGE) TIME…even solid Republicans I know are FURIOUS at Trump’s flattery of a murdering dictator….but I, who usually is furious at Trump!, am NOT over this!

    Don’t you think this flatter is just the ticket? Could be just what the little punk needs to hear?!!

    Like

  17. kid says:

    As unsavory as it is, this is the only way to have gotten him to the table. All things in time.

    Like

  18. kid says:

    btw, You stole my next post Z, but it will go out anyways.

    Like

  19. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, I could NEVER be as clever as you are! Looking forward to reading iyours… I wish I got notices from your blog because I miss some of yours in my laziness………and it always makes me sad!
    I agree…VERY UNSAVORY but effective.

    Like

  20. kid says:

    It s out there Z. I stopped getting email notices of comments. I thinking google may have tagged me as a deplorable and are screwing with me. I have other ways though of dealing with that.

    Thanks for the compliment ! 🙂

    Like

  21. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, by the way…….two Republicans lost primaries Trump supported BIG time….one area was a Trump win by 20 points during his election. I am clinging to your belief we’ll come out ahead in November but I’m not seeing it….

    Like

  22. kid says:

    Where did they lose? Like if it was Virginia or Maryland for example, those places are chock full of federal vermin ‘workers’.
    Very hard to win in those places.

    Regardless – I triple guarantee a red wave.

    Do you think California will vote to split into 3 states?

    Like

  23. geeez2014 says:

    I don’t know about California….I didn’t even know there were enough signatures to go to a vote in November

    As I said, at least one of the places a Republican backed by Trump lost was an area he’d won his election by 20 points in………
    No way on the red wave……..I had hopes because of you but I don’t think so anymore. The hate is just too strong.

    Like

  24. Mal says:

    Yeah, Z. The owner of a brothel in a small town named Pahrump won the GOP nomination for Assembly District 36, giving the middle finger to the establishment. He was dubbed by Trump adviser Roger Stone as “The Trump from Pahrump.” Pahrump is only about 50 miles or so from here but we’ve never been there. It is legal for houses of ill repute to do business there so he is not breaking any law. Hey! At least he admits to being a pimp!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s