I just can't agree that trade barriers improve standard of living and GDP. Protecting jobs through higher prices creates a net loss for the economy. The salaries paid to manufacture televisions, for example, will be less than the sum of the increased cost we all pay for televisions. For example, if it takes an average of $200 per television to make it economical to produce televisions in this country, then every television sold, foreign or domestically manufactured, will cost us $200 extra. If we purchase 30 million televisions, that amounts to 6 billion dollars of additional expense. There is no way that manufacturing jobs for televisions could increase to the point that the salaries are more than 6 billion dollars.
Multiply that same scenario by every product that gets imported and it's not hard to see that making your citizens pay inflated prices for products is not going to improve the standard of living in the country.
The free market isn't free once you step out of the United States.
Because of currency exchange rates...http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-18/news/mn-1024_1_computer-chips
Reagan didn't have a problem placing tariffs on countries, why do you think Toyota and Honda started building plants in the US?
We've been over this before, if you want to subsidize unionized factory workers then send them a relief check from your personal bank account. I don't want to pay more for goods and services across the board so a high school drop out can make $30/hour with full salary pension to tighten down door hinge bolts.Transy, You can't strip away millions of good paying jobs, and not expect issues.
How many adults used to work in fast food restaurants as way to provide for a family? I worked at DQ in 1991-92 as a teenager, other than the managers it was all kids.
At some point we have to look around, we've got some serious civic issues in this country that aren't getting better. The American dream is dying a slow death.
We've been over this before, if you want to subsidize unionized factory workers then send them a relief check from your personal bank account. I don't want to pay more for goods and services across the board so a high school drop out can make $30/hour with full salary pension to tighten down door hinge bolts.
Those "good" jobs, were only good for a very short period of time and only remained that way for as long as they did because of unions and government interference. Maybe if we allowed some manufacturing to slowly die out in the '70s like it should have, we could have moved on. Instead, we artificially pumped up industries well past their prime until the bottom fell out all at once.
Protectionism like you want requires a government capable of being: not corrupt, intelligent beyond the market, agile, and forward thinking. If you think this describes any government in history, I would like examples.
We have a lot of argument from anecdote going on here
Did you read the article you linked? He did it because they didn't live up to a trade agreement they signed that prohibited them from dumping below cost chips into the US market. He wasn't trying to prevent free trade. In fact, they limited the products they put tariffs on to those that were readily available from other suppliers so that it wouldn't raise the cost to US consumers. This was a measure to try and push Japan back to free market trading, not a movement toward protectionism.http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-18/news/mn-1024_1_computer-chips
Reagan didn't have a problem placing tariffs on countries, why do you think Toyota and Honda started building plants in the US?
it really is amazing where some of you "conservatives" have drifted: gubment is baaaaad, but we want it to pick winners/losers via trade barriers. Gubment is bloated, but we don't want a candidate who supports limiting and reforming entitlements. Gubment is too powerful, but we want a POTUS who will sue and coerce every media outlet who challenges him, even if it requires changing the law.
Oh, and we respect Putin. Because now that's a thing.
So could Cheney, but Cheney didn't have journalists murdered.That's because Putin could kick CNN's ass.
So could Cheney, but Cheney didn't have journalists murdered.
We've been over this before, if you want to subsidize unionized factory workers then send them a relief check from your personal bank account. I don't want to pay more for goods and services across the board so a high school drop out can make $30/hour with full salary pension to tighten down door hinge bolts.
Those "good" jobs, were only good for a very short period of time and only remained that way for as long as they did because of unions and government interference. Maybe if we allowed some manufacturing to slowly die out in the '70s like it should have, we could have moved on. Instead, we artificially pumped up industries well past their prime until the bottom fell out all at once.
Protectionism like you want requires a government capable of being: not corrupt, intelligent beyond the market, agile, and forward thinking. If you think this describes any government in history, I would like examples.
We have a lot of argument from anecdote going on here
Did you read the article you linked? He did it because they didn't live up to a trade agreement they signed that prohibited them from dumping below cost chips into the US market. He wasn't trying to prevent free trade. In fact, they limited the products they put tariffs on to those that were readily available from other suppliers so that it wouldn't raise the cost to US consumers. This was a measure to try and push Japan back to free market trading, not a movement toward protectionism.
There have been several automobile manufacturing plants and associated component manufacturing plants built in the US since NAFTA. If tariffs are responsible for Honda and Toyota being here, then why have others been built since NAFTA? The answer is that tariff's have nothing to do with why automobiles are manufactured here. They are built here because the exchange rates are such that it is more economical to build them here rather than build them in foreign countries and ship them here. If that changes, those plants will disappear.
Did you read the article you linked? He did it because they didn't live up to a trade agreement they signed that prohibited them from dumping below cost chips into the US market. He wasn't trying to prevent free trade. In fact, they limited the products they put tariffs on to those that were readily available from other suppliers so that it wouldn't raise the cost to US consumers. This was a measure to try and push Japan back to free market trading, not a movement toward protectionism.
There have been several automobile manufacturing plants and associated component manufacturing plants built in the US since NAFTA. If tariffs are responsible for Honda and Toyota being here, then why have others been built since NAFTA? The answer is that tariff's have nothing to do with why automobiles are manufactured here. They are built here because the exchange rates are such that it is more economical to build them here rather than build them in foreign countries and ship them here. If that changes, those plants will disappear.
Why is that the only other option?So you'd rather the high school dropout leech off the Govt the rest of his life?
it really is amazing where some of you "conservatives" have drifted: gubment is baaaaad, but we want it to pick winners/losers via trade barriers. Gubment is bloated, but we don't want a candidate who supports limiting and reforming entitlements. Gubment is too powerful, but we want a POTUS who will sue and coerce every media outlet who challenges him, even if it requires changing the law.
Oh, and we respect Putin. Because now that's a thing.
Why is that the only other option?
What happened to all those poor buggy whip manufacturers when Henry Ford started cranking out cars? Did they all starve to death or leech off the government for the rest of their life?
@Bill Derington - Should we go to great lengths to preserve the IRS just because of how many accountants' jobs are at stake? Should we make the tax code even more complex in order to ensure their continuing employment?
What about the radio jobs RCA and the like lost to Sony? Are we better or worse off for advancing technology at the expense of American jobs?Because thats exactly the same as sending a job to China or Mexico.
I've literally said the exact opposite dozens, if not hundreds, of times in this threadTransy, if you're fine with the ever increasing number of people on govt help more power to you, I personally am not.
Why do you keep saying this? It's a total non-sequitur. It's not like there are millions of Americans who are incapable of doing anything besides sewing cheap tshirts or assembling iPhonesTransy, if you're fine with the ever increasing number of people on govt help more power to you, I personally am not.
So you'd rather the high school dropout leech off the Govt the rest of his life?
I agree there needed to be a correction, the problem is we over corrected to the extreme other direction of it now. The government's corrupt now, there's probably more now than ever. Elections are practically bought and for, with the elected official doing whatever their master wants.
I'm not saying we need protectionism, I'm saying we might ought to rethink the free trade agreements we have in place, just like the politicians told us in 93.
I live in Western KY, General Tire and Ingersoll Rand moved from Graves County, thats close to 4000 good jobs gone. Goodyear right across the stateline in Union City TN with it's 3000 jobs gone, Johnson Controls in Trigg County 400-500 jobs, Papermill in Ballard County and it's 350 just closed, what do the people in those communities do to replace the income and taxes from those jobs? It's like that all over the Country, we as a nation cannot keep going down this path. At some point we're going to have to pick our poison.
Why do you keep saying this? It's a total non-sequitur. It's not like there are millions of Americans who are incapable of doing anything besides sewing cheap tshirts or assembling iPhones
What do you think about the current price of gasoline, Bill?
Should the US government step in to artificially inflate the price and give all that money to the oil and gas industry to keep those companies afloat? Or should you an I continue to benefit from low gas prices?
The negotiations for NAFTA began during the Reagan administration and continued through the Bush 1 administration. Ross Perot's whole campaign in '92 centered around NAFTA. It was "The giant sucking sound" as he coined it. Perot was against it...both Bush and Clinton supported it. It passed in the Senate with a 61-38 vote...and 234-200 vote in the House. Most of the support was from the GOP.I recall when NAFTA was the big topic in the early 90's. Can remember as clear as day my father telling me we were about to get sold out by our government and over time the jobs would leave the country. At the time I was young and naive and thought he was overreacting. Boy, was I wrong. Many current Congress members, Clinton, and others had their hands all over it. Trump needs to push that topic every chance he gets. Has done it already, but really needs to hammer Hilary on it when the debates come around.
I think Japan is a pretty poor case to cite.Protectionism *can* work for a short period of time to insulate infant industries. There are no examples of protecting an established industry and it working well.
Japan was seen as the prime example of protectionism, the kind of place Wayne and Bill would have been pointing to, working in the '70s and '80s...until the '90s came and their economy has never fully recovered.
We've been over this before, if you want to subsidize unionized factory workers then send them a relief check from your personal bank account. I don't want to pay more for goods and services across the board so a high school drop out can make $30/hour with full salary pension to tighten down door hinge bolts.
Those "good" jobs, were only good for a very short period of time and only remained that way for as long as they did because of unions and government interference. Maybe if we allowed some manufacturing to slowly die out in the '70s like it should have, we could have moved on. Instead, we artificially pumped up industries well past their prime until the bottom fell out all at once.
Protectionism like you want requires a government capable of being: not corrupt, intelligent beyond the market, agile, and forward thinking. If you think this describes any government in history, I would like examples.
We have a lot of argument from anecdote going on here
My point is that you basically stated that Reagan supported taxing imports as a way to protect US jobs. You implied that believed in that approach to trade. That is not at all what happened. He wanted free trade with Japan and they broke that agreement, so I wasn't sure what point you were making by linking this article.No shit, they were flooding the US market, directly against the agreement they had signed so he put a tariff on them.
There are plenty of jobs that aren't outsource-able and come with a very respectable earning potential. If you're a nurse or a plumber, your job isn't getting outsourced and you can get your certification without sinking tons of money into a bachelors degree.I completely agree, unfortunately the oppurtunities to do something else are getting fewer and fewer.