Trump's tariffs
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sway said:
It leaves us having more cash in our pockets for discretionary spends. The fact that Trump doesn't give those benefits to his voters is his problem.
Every single instance of a country unilaterally dropping import tariffs has seen huge levels of growth and income.
Every single instance of a country unilaterally dropping import tariffs has seen huge levels of growth and income.
Makes one wonder why everyone hasn't done it then.
When people are willing to create fallacious comparisons between tariffs and child labour, and businesses will stir the media with crap about job losses if they have to actually compete, then it's really easy to create public opinion against such a move.
This is exceptionally similar to the subsidies NZ farmers used to get (in leiu of tariffs, in order to create 'a level playing field' on price). When the NZ government announced it was going to phase them out there was uproar. The government stuck to it's guns.
What's happened now? Huge growth in NZ farming as they actually thought about how they adapt and compete.
Sway said:
Ghibli said:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affai...
The above is a Rees Mogg article.
If we remove tarrifs on imports and Trump says he will not remove tarrifs on our exports, where does it leave us ?
It leaves us having more cash in our pockets for discretionary spends. The fact that Trump doesn't give those benefits to his voters is his problem. The above is a Rees Mogg article.
If we remove tarrifs on imports and Trump says he will not remove tarrifs on our exports, where does it leave us ?
Every single instance of a country unilaterally dropping import tariffs has seen huge levels of growth and income.
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/061029-5.htm
https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/2172...
Sway said:
Does it? Really?
When people are willing to create fallacious comparisons between tariffs and child labour, and businesses will stir the media with crap about job losses if they have to actually compete, then it's really easy to create public opinion against such a move.
This is exceptionally similar to the subsidies NZ farmers used to get (in leiu of tariffs, in order to create 'a level playing field' on price). When the NZ government announced it was going to phase them out there was uproar. The government stuck to it's guns.
What's happened now? Huge growth in NZ farming as they actually thought about how they adapt and compete.
Blaming people who don't consider it a good idea is a pretty pathetic argument.When people are willing to create fallacious comparisons between tariffs and child labour, and businesses will stir the media with crap about job losses if they have to actually compete, then it's really easy to create public opinion against such a move.
This is exceptionally similar to the subsidies NZ farmers used to get (in leiu of tariffs, in order to create 'a level playing field' on price). When the NZ government announced it was going to phase them out there was uproar. The government stuck to it's guns.
What's happened now? Huge growth in NZ farming as they actually thought about how they adapt and compete.
If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Blaming people who don't consider it a good idea is a pretty pathetic argument.
If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
There has been plenty of evidence - I've even given a specific example that can be researched in the post you've quoted... If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sway said:
Does it? Really?
When people are willing to create fallacious comparisons between tariffs and child labour, and businesses will stir the media with crap about job losses if they have to actually compete, then it's really easy to create public opinion against such a move.
This is exceptionally similar to the subsidies NZ farmers used to get (in leiu of tariffs, in order to create 'a level playing field' on price). When the NZ government announced it was going to phase them out there was uproar. The government stuck to it's guns.
What's happened now? Huge growth in NZ farming as they actually thought about how they adapt and compete.
Blaming people who don't consider it a good idea is a pretty pathetic argument.When people are willing to create fallacious comparisons between tariffs and child labour, and businesses will stir the media with crap about job losses if they have to actually compete, then it's really easy to create public opinion against such a move.
This is exceptionally similar to the subsidies NZ farmers used to get (in leiu of tariffs, in order to create 'a level playing field' on price). When the NZ government announced it was going to phase them out there was uproar. The government stuck to it's guns.
What's happened now? Huge growth in NZ farming as they actually thought about how they adapt and compete.
If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
Must as I loathe protectionism, Trump is only doing what he was voted to do. I'm afraid it is the US electorate's fault if such policies turn out to cost them in the long run.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Blaming people who don't consider it a good idea is a pretty pathetic argument.
If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
They can and they do. Unfortunately in the face of 'foreigners taking our jobs', governments tend towards the easy fix. It's a natural human instinct to try to preserve what we've got rather than accept change. The current political class are not from a background of science, or economists - they're more interested in social media than proven studies.If it's so great politicians and economists should be able to provide convincing evidence to prove their case.
4x4Tyke said:
Kermit power said:
We've had what, fifty years of increasingly free trade, and who really benefits?
Everybody, the benefits of free trade are well established in both economics and social science.Manufacturers aren't free to compete on a level playing field, are they?
I don't think there should necessarily be a race to the bottom, but could see a case for levying a poor working conditions tariff on some countries. If they up their workers' conditions to match the legal minimum here, then drop the tariffs, as there would then be a level playing field to compete on.
Kermit power said:
4x4Tyke said:
Kermit power said:
We've had what, fifty years of increasingly free trade, and who really benefits?
Everybody, the benefits of free trade are well established in both economics and social science.Manufacturers aren't free to compete on a level playing field, are they?
I don't think there should necessarily be a race to the bottom, but could see a case for levying a poor working conditions tariff on some countries. If they up their workers' conditions to match the legal minimum here, then drop the tariffs, as there would then be a level playing field to compete on.
There is a reason why we are in the top 10 countries globally for manufacturing, and working conditions and wage expectations aren't preventing that.
Kermit power said:
I don't think there should necessarily be a race to the bottom, but could see a case for levying a poor working conditions tariff on some countries. If they up their workers' conditions to match the legal minimum here, then drop the tariffs, as there would then be a level playing field to compete on.
There is a case for not buying products made by what amounts to slave labour, but you don't do that with tariffs. Many Western firms have already successfully put pressure on Chinese employers to improve conditions.Forcing them to match legal minimums here makes no sense. If a penniless Chinese farmer wants to spend a year or so working in a manufacturing plant far from home to build up a nest egg, he may not want to be restricted to Western style working hours. He may not want time off in an expensive city where he doesn't know anyone. He may well prefer to do all the overtime he can so as to get back home sooner, and that's his choice.
Ultimately we don't want a level playing field, that would defeat the point of trade.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff