February 05, 2025
A Debate Over Tariffs
Timothy Birdnow
Reader Mike (a brilliant man, most certainly) and I are having a debate about tariffs and I thought it would be an interesting discussion to post on the main page.
(To read more on my position on tariffs and why I do not fear them read this. The discussion below is less well-notated (because it was just a discussion) but you can easily look this all up.)
Mike asks:
Asking for a friend. Was USMCA one of the horrible trade deals that trump speaks of? How is putting Mexican troops on the border to stop the cartels going to help when the cartels already defeated them? In the deal with Canada all he got was for them to add the cartels to their terrorist list. Everything else was already in the works with their new border czar. And with his tariff BS its time for him to move on. Tariffs dont work. They will drive prices up further, something he wasnt elected to do.
I respond: Mike, you are correct and there is a lot more to do in all avenues here. But well begun is half done and now Trump has made it clear he's going to be the boss.
Mike I don't think the Mexican military got beaten by the Cartels so much as joined them. Mexico is corrupt to the core. But if the Mexicans are trying to handle their side and we use the military to take them out here it's going to be a whole new ballgame. That's why, one way or another, we are having a Mexican war. We may be partners with the Mexican government but it will be our forces doing most of the fighting.
Mike I disagree; Tariffs do work as long as they are targeted and done with some sense. Everyone points to Smoot-Hawley as proof of the terrible nature of tariffs, but that was an outlier -- pretty much a general tariff on everyone and at a time of economic downturn. It was NOT Smoot-Hawley that caused the Depression, I would add; it was Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply. I've written about that several times before here.
Tariffs were the only funding mechanism the U.S. government had until 1913, I might add, other than issuing bonds (which had to be repayed). The country did fine under them. But it's become axiomatic that tariffs are destructive, by the same people who brought us the New Deal, the Great Society, etc.
There is a difference between things being negotiated and actually happening. I doubt Mexico would have done any of this without the threat of tariffs. They simply cannot afford it and so we suddenly had leverage. Biden would never have done that (and of course he didn't). It's hard to win a fight if you don't have leverage.
We shall see if they drive prices up. They might for a short time, and we are going to have some pains during the realignment. But people forget that Reagan's supply side economics took a couple of years to work, and we had a really nasty recession for the first two years of Reagan's Presidency. But remember Mike if we need stuff so do they, and our economy is far larger and can absorb it far more easily. In time they will submit. The very fact that Mexico is already making big concessions - and Trump suspended the tariffs - shows this to be the case.
As for USMCA, yeah; it wasn't a good deal and Trump needs to reform it - or just get rid of it altogether. Is it any surprise that we saw the explosion of drugs and illegal aliens along our borders after NAFTA? We don't need these kinds of agreements making a North American Union (which is exactly how the European Union was created; first an economic entente then an economic union, then a political union).
But Mike I think the point Trump is making about Canada is that they aren't following the agreement in the first place. It's now one-sided, which is why he's mad at them.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter anyway.
Mike says:
The reason the govt did fine until 1913 wasnt because of tariffs. In 1913 tariffs made up only 10% of its budget. Before that the US govt was selling land to make up the difference and in 1913 it ran out of land to sell.
I know I dont need to remind you that the war of Southern Independence was caused by tariffs. Lincoln and his Repubs passed laws demanding the South pay them and they flipped them the bird. Lincoln had no recourse but threaten to send in Fed troops and it was on.
I reply:
Mike, the U.S. made some money selling land, but not that much; it always sold relatively cheaply and made large free or nearly free land grants - to railroads and later to homesteaders.
Mike, the tariffs were much higher than your estimate between 1869 and 1900 - usually over 50% and topping at 58% of Federal revenue. It was only after the turn of the 20th century that it was reduced (and yes, by selling land and deficit spending) until 1913 when a whole new funding mechanism was put in place. Tariffs and excise taxes and land sales were in fact the primary funding mechanism. The low tariff rates you cite happened mainly at the very end of the cycle, and they as much as anything caused the implementation of the income tax.
Prior to 1913 the government had no legal right to compel people to pay taxes directly. There were no intrusive tax forms, no IRS agents breathing down your neck, no audits. And we did fine.
I'm not saying I like a high tariff either and you are correct that the War Between the States was in no small part over tariffs, but one can argue that they were not just tover tariffs but over taxation in general. The South wanted lower tariffs and had the North imposing them on them since there were more Northern states - and a higher population.
But the civil War had many other causes and those included huge cultural differences and the metastic growth of the Federal government and of course the slavery issue (which could have been solved far bettter through negotiation. Britain, for instance, paid compensation to slaveholders and did it in stages with an educational system in place for the slaves unlike the way we did it by just ramming it down the throats of the Southerners and making no provisions and in fact treating Southerners who tried to defend themselves from criminal former slaves as traitors.) The ruling class in the South didn't like the tariffs but I rather doubt the average person gave a hoot about them.
But getting back to the subject at hand; the income tax originally was quite mild, and imposed a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000 , with a top tax rate of six percent on those earning more than $500,000 per year. It was no more adequate to fund the government than was the tariffs at this point,and the country was doing fine. But of course that rate rose considerably.
And since the U.S. was booming in the '20's it was making out fine. In 1925 the tariff was 14.5%, in '28 it was 14%. I would add it was Calvin Coolidge, who is known as the man who said "the business of America is business" and was a fiscal hawk actually raised the tariff and did so quite enthusiastically. He shephered through the The Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act, which authorized raising the tariff to as high as 50%. This was only one year after the end of the horrible depression of '21. This started the roaring twenties (not the taxation but it didn't hinder the boom is my point.)
These tariffs actually were low; in 1910 they were at , 34.6%, for instance.
In the end it was not the tariffs that hurt the economy but the the Federal Reserve, which had maintained a weak-dollar policy and mild inflation through the '20's and then sharply reduced the money supply. And once the Depression began it conttinued until the Fed had cut the supply by 30%, at a time that they needed liquidity. Tariffs had little to do with it, although they certainly didn't help.
Frankly Mike I oppose ALL taxes, but we cannot be rid of them alas. And so we need to make them minimal and make them less intrusive on the public. And we may as well utilize them to compel foreign countries to treat us fairly.
These tariffs won't cause major inflation, nor will they cause an economic downturn, unless the Federal Reserve implements an austerity program to "fix" things which they just might do to screw Trump. We might have some products go up, but that will be termporary. There are plenty of fish in the sea and most of what we buy from abroad can be found elsewhwere. Trump is not making tariffs that are across the board - the are targeted.
Oh Mike,some of America's highest economic growth occurred during periods with high tariffs.
Between 1871-1913 the U.S. economy grew annually at 4.3%, despite being some of the highests levels of tariffs we have ever imposed. Throughout this period tariff rates were generally abover 38%, although they were dropping during the teens.
This graph illustrates how low the tariff rates are at present:
https://www.howeandrusling.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-02-03-at-9.54.01%E2%80%AFAM-1024x518.png
Sorry - it cut off, but you can see the trend line and it hasn't changed.
So what has happened at this time? We've heard that giant sucking sound as foreign competitors have turned us into a service economy from a manufacturing one. That needn't have happened. It happened because we let anyone who wanted a share of our market come and take it. The end result is people with decent jobs wound up driving Ubers or watiting tables. The rust belt is rusty because we have "outsourced" all our labor. That would have been avoided with reasonable restrictions and tariffs.
NOT going hog wild, mind you, but some targeted restrictions would have been greatly beneficial.
And Mike here is a PDF file report from the government about the matter; half of all revenue brought in by the United States was through tariffs according to the report. (The other half was excise taxes mainly; land sales were not all that important.)
Do not fear the tariff; it's not the bogeyman we've all been taught to believe it to be.
Reader Mike (a brilliant man, most certainly) and I are having a debate about tariffs and I thought it would be an interesting discussion to post on the main page.
(To read more on my position on tariffs and why I do not fear them read this. The discussion below is less well-notated (because it was just a discussion) but you can easily look this all up.)
Mike asks:
Asking for a friend. Was USMCA one of the horrible trade deals that trump speaks of? How is putting Mexican troops on the border to stop the cartels going to help when the cartels already defeated them? In the deal with Canada all he got was for them to add the cartels to their terrorist list. Everything else was already in the works with their new border czar. And with his tariff BS its time for him to move on. Tariffs dont work. They will drive prices up further, something he wasnt elected to do.
I respond: Mike, you are correct and there is a lot more to do in all avenues here. But well begun is half done and now Trump has made it clear he's going to be the boss.
Mike I don't think the Mexican military got beaten by the Cartels so much as joined them. Mexico is corrupt to the core. But if the Mexicans are trying to handle their side and we use the military to take them out here it's going to be a whole new ballgame. That's why, one way or another, we are having a Mexican war. We may be partners with the Mexican government but it will be our forces doing most of the fighting.
Mike I disagree; Tariffs do work as long as they are targeted and done with some sense. Everyone points to Smoot-Hawley as proof of the terrible nature of tariffs, but that was an outlier -- pretty much a general tariff on everyone and at a time of economic downturn. It was NOT Smoot-Hawley that caused the Depression, I would add; it was Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply. I've written about that several times before here.
Tariffs were the only funding mechanism the U.S. government had until 1913, I might add, other than issuing bonds (which had to be repayed). The country did fine under them. But it's become axiomatic that tariffs are destructive, by the same people who brought us the New Deal, the Great Society, etc.
There is a difference between things being negotiated and actually happening. I doubt Mexico would have done any of this without the threat of tariffs. They simply cannot afford it and so we suddenly had leverage. Biden would never have done that (and of course he didn't). It's hard to win a fight if you don't have leverage.
We shall see if they drive prices up. They might for a short time, and we are going to have some pains during the realignment. But people forget that Reagan's supply side economics took a couple of years to work, and we had a really nasty recession for the first two years of Reagan's Presidency. But remember Mike if we need stuff so do they, and our economy is far larger and can absorb it far more easily. In time they will submit. The very fact that Mexico is already making big concessions - and Trump suspended the tariffs - shows this to be the case.
As for USMCA, yeah; it wasn't a good deal and Trump needs to reform it - or just get rid of it altogether. Is it any surprise that we saw the explosion of drugs and illegal aliens along our borders after NAFTA? We don't need these kinds of agreements making a North American Union (which is exactly how the European Union was created; first an economic entente then an economic union, then a political union).
But Mike I think the point Trump is making about Canada is that they aren't following the agreement in the first place. It's now one-sided, which is why he's mad at them.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter anyway.
Mike says:
The reason the govt did fine until 1913 wasnt because of tariffs. In 1913 tariffs made up only 10% of its budget. Before that the US govt was selling land to make up the difference and in 1913 it ran out of land to sell.
I know I dont need to remind you that the war of Southern Independence was caused by tariffs. Lincoln and his Repubs passed laws demanding the South pay them and they flipped them the bird. Lincoln had no recourse but threaten to send in Fed troops and it was on.
I reply:
Mike, the U.S. made some money selling land, but not that much; it always sold relatively cheaply and made large free or nearly free land grants - to railroads and later to homesteaders.
Mike, the tariffs were much higher than your estimate between 1869 and 1900 - usually over 50% and topping at 58% of Federal revenue. It was only after the turn of the 20th century that it was reduced (and yes, by selling land and deficit spending) until 1913 when a whole new funding mechanism was put in place. Tariffs and excise taxes and land sales were in fact the primary funding mechanism. The low tariff rates you cite happened mainly at the very end of the cycle, and they as much as anything caused the implementation of the income tax.
Prior to 1913 the government had no legal right to compel people to pay taxes directly. There were no intrusive tax forms, no IRS agents breathing down your neck, no audits. And we did fine.
I'm not saying I like a high tariff either and you are correct that the War Between the States was in no small part over tariffs, but one can argue that they were not just tover tariffs but over taxation in general. The South wanted lower tariffs and had the North imposing them on them since there were more Northern states - and a higher population.
But the civil War had many other causes and those included huge cultural differences and the metastic growth of the Federal government and of course the slavery issue (which could have been solved far bettter through negotiation. Britain, for instance, paid compensation to slaveholders and did it in stages with an educational system in place for the slaves unlike the way we did it by just ramming it down the throats of the Southerners and making no provisions and in fact treating Southerners who tried to defend themselves from criminal former slaves as traitors.) The ruling class in the South didn't like the tariffs but I rather doubt the average person gave a hoot about them.
But getting back to the subject at hand; the income tax originally was quite mild, and imposed a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000 , with a top tax rate of six percent on those earning more than $500,000 per year. It was no more adequate to fund the government than was the tariffs at this point,and the country was doing fine. But of course that rate rose considerably.
And since the U.S. was booming in the '20's it was making out fine. In 1925 the tariff was 14.5%, in '28 it was 14%. I would add it was Calvin Coolidge, who is known as the man who said "the business of America is business" and was a fiscal hawk actually raised the tariff and did so quite enthusiastically. He shephered through the The Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act, which authorized raising the tariff to as high as 50%. This was only one year after the end of the horrible depression of '21. This started the roaring twenties (not the taxation but it didn't hinder the boom is my point.)
These tariffs actually were low; in 1910 they were at , 34.6%, for instance.
In the end it was not the tariffs that hurt the economy but the the Federal Reserve, which had maintained a weak-dollar policy and mild inflation through the '20's and then sharply reduced the money supply. And once the Depression began it conttinued until the Fed had cut the supply by 30%, at a time that they needed liquidity. Tariffs had little to do with it, although they certainly didn't help.
Frankly Mike I oppose ALL taxes, but we cannot be rid of them alas. And so we need to make them minimal and make them less intrusive on the public. And we may as well utilize them to compel foreign countries to treat us fairly.
These tariffs won't cause major inflation, nor will they cause an economic downturn, unless the Federal Reserve implements an austerity program to "fix" things which they just might do to screw Trump. We might have some products go up, but that will be termporary. There are plenty of fish in the sea and most of what we buy from abroad can be found elsewhwere. Trump is not making tariffs that are across the board - the are targeted.
Oh Mike,some of America's highest economic growth occurred during periods with high tariffs.
Between 1871-1913 the U.S. economy grew annually at 4.3%, despite being some of the highests levels of tariffs we have ever imposed. Throughout this period tariff rates were generally abover 38%, although they were dropping during the teens.
This graph illustrates how low the tariff rates are at present:
https://www.howeandrusling.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-02-03-at-9.54.01%E2%80%AFAM-1024x518.png
Sorry - it cut off, but you can see the trend line and it hasn't changed.
So what has happened at this time? We've heard that giant sucking sound as foreign competitors have turned us into a service economy from a manufacturing one. That needn't have happened. It happened because we let anyone who wanted a share of our market come and take it. The end result is people with decent jobs wound up driving Ubers or watiting tables. The rust belt is rusty because we have "outsourced" all our labor. That would have been avoided with reasonable restrictions and tariffs.
NOT going hog wild, mind you, but some targeted restrictions would have been greatly beneficial.
And Mike here is a PDF file report from the government about the matter; half of all revenue brought in by the United States was through tariffs according to the report. (The other half was excise taxes mainly; land sales were not all that important.)
Do not fear the tariff; it's not the bogeyman we've all been taught to believe it to be.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:00 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1776 words, total size 11 kb.
1
Tim, everything that comes before but is bull shit, so dont piss down my back and tell me its raining.
Tim, if tariffs are not be feared why hasnt any President since Washington tariff ed there way out of debt. Is it because in trade wars there are no winners only that the loser suffers worse especially if prolonged.
Trump, Tim was very measured in his tariff usage. He knew it would be more bang for the buck to issue tariff threats then negotiate in a public forum, especially when most of the negotiating was done before hand behind closed doors. The tariff threat sealed the deal. The exception to this was China but even that was measured. Chinas stock market is pretty shaky and their tit for tat response was expected. Any stronger and both economies coming crashing down.
Tim I did find one tariff I can get behind. That is how the USPS deals with packages coming out of China. Conservative Treehouse goes into detail.
And Tim send that PDF file to Red Eye Radio. They were the ones who claimed that revenue came from land sales and they dont make claims they cant back. Bad for their image.
And Tim send that PDF file to Red Eye Radio. They were the ones who claimed that revenue came from land sales and they dont make claims they cant back. Bad for their image.
Posted by: Mike at February 06, 2025 07:34 AM (BH0KQ)
2
Mike, most Presidents HAVE imposed tariffs, starting with Washington and going all the way through to Trump. Biden didn't remove them. Obama imposed tariffs on China. Bush Jr. imposed tariffs on steel. I've already mentioned Reagan. You can go back as long as you like and find Presidents imposing targeted tariffs.
Not sure how "everything you said was bullshit" works as a factual rebuttal except in My Cousin Vinny. But I did mean the first part too.
As I pointed out we had almost four percent growth between the civil war and 1913 on average during a period of pretty high tariffs. The numbers don't lie. You cannot find correlation between tariffs and economic growth.
Sometimes they start trade wars if misapplied (as they were with Smoot Hawley) and at that time the U.S. was not the world's great superpower like today; we got into trade wars with countries with higher GDP than our own and more resources to draw on. Fighting a trade war with the British Empire was asking for it. But now WE are in the position of the British Empire.
You say:
" Trump, Tim was very measured in his tariff usage. "
And I agree. He is using targeted tariffs and more importantly the threat of tariffs.
As I said, I don't like ANY taxes but some are necessary and I prefer an indirect one to that evil entity the Internal Revenue Service (who, by the way, just sent me a notice they were going to freeze my assetts because of an issue from 2020 I thought was resolved - an issue caused by them sending me the wrong refund then trying to charge me for it.) Tariffs don't impose any obligation of the citizenry - just on importers.
Mike, I don't know anything about Red Eye Radio but I do believe land sales were less than 10% of the country's revenue. We need to bring my brother into this discussion; he's the expert on it (he's a American history professor). I hope he has time to jump in. And I could have found a lot more stuff for you if I had a computer that wasn't built by Alan Turing...
Anyway I would say you aren't going to grow the economy via taxastion, but you might bring key industries back through tariffs, industries we desperately need. Other countries do it, and all the time. China imposes all sorts of tariffs on our goods and other countries and has always done so since they opened their economy and they are now the second great economic power. (Granted they are in trouble but that's another story.)
My point is tariffs have been demonized for some time as this big bad wolf to be feared and they aren't and never have been. There is a reason why this has happened and it ties to Globalism and this whole crazy New World Order nonsense. Eliminating economic barriers is the first step to creating world government and that is obvious to anyone who saw how the European Union was created. It started asa free trade zone and went from there.
Not sure how "everything you said was bullshit" works as a factual rebuttal except in My Cousin Vinny. But I did mean the first part too.
As I pointed out we had almost four percent growth between the civil war and 1913 on average during a period of pretty high tariffs. The numbers don't lie. You cannot find correlation between tariffs and economic growth.
Sometimes they start trade wars if misapplied (as they were with Smoot Hawley) and at that time the U.S. was not the world's great superpower like today; we got into trade wars with countries with higher GDP than our own and more resources to draw on. Fighting a trade war with the British Empire was asking for it. But now WE are in the position of the British Empire.
You say:
" Trump, Tim was very measured in his tariff usage. "
And I agree. He is using targeted tariffs and more importantly the threat of tariffs.
As I said, I don't like ANY taxes but some are necessary and I prefer an indirect one to that evil entity the Internal Revenue Service (who, by the way, just sent me a notice they were going to freeze my assetts because of an issue from 2020 I thought was resolved - an issue caused by them sending me the wrong refund then trying to charge me for it.) Tariffs don't impose any obligation of the citizenry - just on importers.
Mike, I don't know anything about Red Eye Radio but I do believe land sales were less than 10% of the country's revenue. We need to bring my brother into this discussion; he's the expert on it (he's a American history professor). I hope he has time to jump in. And I could have found a lot more stuff for you if I had a computer that wasn't built by Alan Turing...
Anyway I would say you aren't going to grow the economy via taxastion, but you might bring key industries back through tariffs, industries we desperately need. Other countries do it, and all the time. China imposes all sorts of tariffs on our goods and other countries and has always done so since they opened their economy and they are now the second great economic power. (Granted they are in trouble but that's another story.)
My point is tariffs have been demonized for some time as this big bad wolf to be feared and they aren't and never have been. There is a reason why this has happened and it ties to Globalism and this whole crazy New World Order nonsense. Eliminating economic barriers is the first step to creating world government and that is obvious to anyone who saw how the European Union was created. It started asa free trade zone and went from there.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at February 06, 2025 08:45 AM (twTX3)
3
So the debate on tariffs goes on the same as it did when our founders were debating the subject.
I see that the CATO institute backs your 50% revenue but I wonder since taxation was a curse word spoken by Satan back then how much of this tariff revenue was domestic generated disguised as a tariff such as export tariff rather then export tax. CATO does point that growth during that time was restricted due to tariffs and those tariffs were largely political in nature. Tariffs added to laws to protect an interest favored by some Senator who didnt take into account what harm it would do. Tariffs can be boom or bust depending on how they are implemented.
From Hamilton " Those hands which may be deprived of business by the cessation of
commerce, may be occupied in various kinds of manufactures and other
internal improvements. If, by the necessity of the thing, manufactures
should once be established, and take root among us, they will pave the
way still more to the future grandeur and glory of America; and, by
lessening its need of external commerce, will render it still securer
against the encroachments of tyranny.
I have read those founders statements who didnt see what Hamilton saw. Tariffs can obligate a person to buy an inferior made domestic product instead of a foreign made durable product due to the added expense of the tariff. Tariffs can also stymie advancements in technology by making growth unnecessary since foreign competition is all but eliminated. There are many pros and cons. In order for them to work there needs to be a balance, but just where do you find that balance? What seems fair to one is seen as unfair by the other which is why free trade doesnt work because a lot of the time is does favor one over the other.
From my personal experience I bought a brand new domestic made car at the time foreign imports were just starting to catch on. I found out why imports became popular because the car I bought was a great example how domestic autos quality was at rock bottom. It was junk when it rolled off the assembly line and it wasnt a lemon it was just the standard junk being produced. It took the shock of foreign imports to get US auto makers in the game and a few bailouts of taxpayer cash. If the US had slammed high tariffs on imports what incentive would the US auto makers had to change.
Red Eye radio is trucker oriented since they are on overnight. I catch their podcasts during the day or sometimes listen live on WMAL
I have read those founders statements who didnt see what Hamilton saw. Tariffs can obligate a person to buy an inferior made domestic product instead of a foreign made durable product due to the added expense of the tariff. Tariffs can also stymie advancements in technology by making growth unnecessary since foreign competition is all but eliminated. There are many pros and cons. In order for them to work there needs to be a balance, but just where do you find that balance? What seems fair to one is seen as unfair by the other which is why free trade doesnt work because a lot of the time is does favor one over the other.
From my personal experience I bought a brand new domestic made car at the time foreign imports were just starting to catch on. I found out why imports became popular because the car I bought was a great example how domestic autos quality was at rock bottom. It was junk when it rolled off the assembly line and it wasnt a lemon it was just the standard junk being produced. It took the shock of foreign imports to get US auto makers in the game and a few bailouts of taxpayer cash. If the US had slammed high tariffs on imports what incentive would the US auto makers had to change.
Red Eye radio is trucker oriented since they are on overnight. I catch their podcasts during the day or sometimes listen live on WMAL
Posted by: Mike at February 06, 2025 12:36 PM (bl/qr)
4
Mike I pretty much agree with all of that (although I think Cato has it wrong about "stymied economic growth"; how can anyone say economic growth in 19th century America was "stymied" when we grew from a joke of a country into an economic powerhouse by the latter part of the 19th, despite a horribly destructive war that tore the country apart and ravaged the entire South?) BTW Cato is a purely libertarian organization and they are hempted up (pardon the tortured pun) on the whole "free markets" business. They also think we should have open borders, so I always take them with a grain of salt.
Yeah; I remember '70's cars; they were horrible and certainly tariffs on imports wouldn't have been helpful (although they may still have gotten better as nobody outside the U.S. would have bought them.) As you say, they are great as targeted tools.
My brother had a Pontiac Astre; total piece of junk. It had an aluminum block and a fusz that blew if it overheated. He had some sort of short in the electrical system and the fusz was always blowing, usually when he was driving through the ghetto on his way home from college. Nobody ever figured it out. It was just a design flaw built to save money and comply with CAFE standards.
But of course high taxes in any area can cause huge problems. We drove out many corporations from the U.S. by having high corporate taxes - which Trump cut in his first term and that's why the economy exploded under him.
(BTW I'm having ongoing problems with the IRS and I'm certainly not alone. Income taxes are horribly damaging to the economy as you try to shelter your money rather than invest it. Any tax can be destructive if misused.)
Yep - the problem is what is the definition of "free". In the case of China - and Canada and Mexico - "free" means unfettered access to our markets for their products but not for ours into theirs. If everyone would play by the rules it would work. Therin lies the problem with Adam Smith, who was right on most things but couldn't take into account the all-too-human tendency to bend the rules.And even HE favored tariffs in some cases. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-adam-smith-said-about-free-trade/ It was actually Milton Friedman, who was of course brilliant, who thought all tariffs bad, even when we were getting cheated in the deal. Friedman was wrong and I think history has proven that.
But I agree; they should be limited and have expirations on them to force re-evaluation. As taxes they should be viewed as like the Judges of ancient Israel; rise up when needed then disappear when not.
I'll have to check out that Redeye Radio if I ever upgrade my technology (which is way overdue - Dana Mathewson is always up my backside about that, but I just don't want to fool with it - too many other things to worry about, alas.)
Yeah; I remember '70's cars; they were horrible and certainly tariffs on imports wouldn't have been helpful (although they may still have gotten better as nobody outside the U.S. would have bought them.) As you say, they are great as targeted tools.
My brother had a Pontiac Astre; total piece of junk. It had an aluminum block and a fusz that blew if it overheated. He had some sort of short in the electrical system and the fusz was always blowing, usually when he was driving through the ghetto on his way home from college. Nobody ever figured it out. It was just a design flaw built to save money and comply with CAFE standards.
But of course high taxes in any area can cause huge problems. We drove out many corporations from the U.S. by having high corporate taxes - which Trump cut in his first term and that's why the economy exploded under him.
(BTW I'm having ongoing problems with the IRS and I'm certainly not alone. Income taxes are horribly damaging to the economy as you try to shelter your money rather than invest it. Any tax can be destructive if misused.)
Yep - the problem is what is the definition of "free". In the case of China - and Canada and Mexico - "free" means unfettered access to our markets for their products but not for ours into theirs. If everyone would play by the rules it would work. Therin lies the problem with Adam Smith, who was right on most things but couldn't take into account the all-too-human tendency to bend the rules.And even HE favored tariffs in some cases. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-adam-smith-said-about-free-trade/ It was actually Milton Friedman, who was of course brilliant, who thought all tariffs bad, even when we were getting cheated in the deal. Friedman was wrong and I think history has proven that.
But I agree; they should be limited and have expirations on them to force re-evaluation. As taxes they should be viewed as like the Judges of ancient Israel; rise up when needed then disappear when not.
I'll have to check out that Redeye Radio if I ever upgrade my technology (which is way overdue - Dana Mathewson is always up my backside about that, but I just don't want to fool with it - too many other things to worry about, alas.)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at February 07, 2025 08:39 AM (GP42d)
40kb generated in CPU 0.0476, elapsed 0.321 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3142 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3142 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
