|
0 members (),
11
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,551
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133 |
It is strange and I haven't read anyone who will say what I am about to type. The prices of some US made goods is X and some foreign countries export the same item for X-20 (or whatever). Some US consumers will buy the foreign product cheaper than the US product. Now when tariffs are enacted, the price of the foreign goods increase to a price greater than X-20. Presumably the US consumer will buy the US product since it has become cheaper. In doing so the US consumer will be taxed for the difference he was paying for the price he is now paying anyway. In either case the US consumer has seen a tax on goods.
The forward thinking is that at some point, US manufacturers will increase production and the US products will become cheaper. Unfortunately for this time in history, the US has moved past a manufacturing phase in capitalism, and there is no interest by enough companies to re-enter heavy manufacturing, so it won't do much good.
Bottom line is the US consumer WILL pay more ... because of flawed thinking by a nitwit who probably failed to attend economics classes at Wharton. Of course all of his brain dead economic advisers are boot licking sycophants, who will simply regurgitate what the boss says in order to keep their position of power. I floated this idea on a Rightie dominated forum recently: Seems obvious that subsidizing U.S. manufacturing would be a more direct and productive method for “bringing back” industry than tariffs. Same amount of “short term pain”, but without the what-ifs and upfront cost and risk of establishing or growing businesses on the gamble that in five years they might be profitable. New jobs would appear instantly, too.
The tax burden would be the same - tariffs are taxes, too. And the subsidy route would put the funds directly back into the economy. Jobs created would benefit lower income workers, not the class of people who make more money than they need by playing with their excess dough. Maybe keeping folks off of unemployment compensation and food stamps and saving the government there, too.
People with jobs have the capacity to purchase the produced goods - that’s a huge factor in the equation.
So, use the tariff tax revenues to support the industries that the tariffs are supposed to be protecting.
I see avoidance of the fact that subsidies would provide upfront material benefits to job creation, the economy, and allay welfare costs.
Tariffs have no tangible benefits, except taxing consumers for federal revenue - the other supporting arguments are all long-term speculation. That's an amalgam of several posts responding to comments of utter abhorrence of subsidies being Socialism, and encouraging laziness and freeloading; and tariffs somehow being Capitalism, exhibiting strength, power, and dominance. I pointed out that both were acts of government interference in the sacred doctrine of free markets, but one type comes with immediate tangible benefits, the other being nothing but a heinous TAX (gasp!) consisting of empty and delusional speculation, putting more money in the much despised federal coffers. Still no takers... Folks, we are not dealing with a political problem, we are faced with mass insanity - a severe, widespread toxic personality disorder. Thinking about it from that perspective might make a difference in charting a path through the storm.
Last edited by logtroll; 6 hours ago.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,086 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,086 Likes: 134 |
Ahh ... the eternal optimist So, one should ask the question, predicated on the assumption there is a dictator in office, what would any righteous dictator do once in power? Would they allow free and fair elections? [The ones who have were almost immediately arrested for crimes against the state and imprisoned, and the ones who don't are still in power]. So we should expect there will not be free nor fair elections in 28 and maybe not in 26. Just one aspect for which to ponder. Now as to the Courts, we have already seen the Supremes handing over monarchical power to Trump. So why would they back down now? Currently we have Trump allies calling on Roberts and Barrett to support Trump's power. That's a message from Trump. I have a hard time trying to decipher the calculus of an extortion against a Supreme, but it is clear at least 4 are firm hard supporter of Trump's power and probably an enhancement of that power. Gee he's the King .... I mean president. So I don't think it would take much to push either over to the side of dictatorship. However, the lower courts have indeed in most cases tried to hold the administration to the rule of law. Unfortunately they are not the final written in stone opinion. For that we have to hold our breath while a 6-3 SC decides in the favor of the Law or political ideology. One example is the detention of a green card holder. Does such a person have the same rights as a citizen and can thus freely without government retribution express their political beliefs? I am 75% certain the Trumpist majority will sustain the government. Now if you think that sounds like a dictatorship, well it is. Finally to wrap it up, and I am not the only person who has expressed this concept and it is getting more widespread coverage, there is no enforcement mechanism of a court opinion. To circle back, would a dictator allow the courts to dictate that dictatorial fiats are illegal? I have a smile on my face if you think so. Trump has already rebuffed court orders. Once this sinks in, why would anyone believe he won't simply ignore any order which doesn't appeal to his narcissistic delusions. Yes my brother you are a short term optimist. I am a long term optimist. I know in 100 or 200 years the inertia of historical progressiveness will crush ideas which fail to adapt. That flame will always burn bright.
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
