Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I’m a Tariff Man
From the President’s Twitter account: “President Xi and I want this deal to happen, and it probably will. But if not remember … I am a Tariff Man.”
“When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so,” the president wrote. “It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN.”
The mocking reactions were predictable enough from both the right and the left. It’s interesting, too. From the left it seems we’ve finally found a tax the Democrats don’t want to embrace and a willingness to tell unionized industrial workers in America to go pound sand. From the right, we’ve finally found an issue where they’re willing to say that Ronald Reagan was full of it.
“Wait a minute,” you say. “NAFTA had its roots in the Reagan Administration!” True enough, but Reagan’s was also a presidency full of protectionist tariffs and policies*:
- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports;
- Tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar;
- Negotiated to increase the restrictiveness of the Multifiber Arrangement governing trade in textiles and apparel;
- Required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, Australia, and the European Community, to accept “voluntary restraint agreements” that reduce their steel imports to the United States;
- Imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior Japanese management was the cause of its problems;
- Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles;
- Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory chips;
- Removed third-world countries on several occasions from the duty-free import program for developing nations;
- Pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts;
- Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools;
- Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings on grounds so that the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen;
- Accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and color picture tubes;
- Extended quotas on imported clothes pins;
- Failed to ask Congress to end the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and timber cut from federal lands;
- Redefined dumping so domestic firms can more easily charge foreign competitors with unfair trade practices;
- Beefed-up the Export-Import Bank, an institution dedicated to distorting the American economy at the expense of the American people in order to artificially promote exports of eight large corporations.
This was not out of character for Reagan. In the 1980 Republican Platform his ideals toward trade was laid out in clear and simple language. “The [Carter] Administration’s inability to ensure fairness and equity between our nation and some of our trading partners has resulted in massive unemployment in many core industries. As we meet in Detroit, this Party takes special notice that among the hardest hit have been the automotive workers whose jobs are now targeted by aggressive foreign competition. Much of this problem is a result of the present Administration’s inability to negotiate foreign trade agreements which do not jeopardize American jobs. We will take steps to ensure competitiveness of our domestic industries to protect American jobs.” (Emphasis mine.)
As international trade agreements began to be hammered out, through the Republican Administrations of the two Bushes and the Democratic Administrations of Clinton and Obama, how did this work out? Not so well? Hey, these jobs are gone and ain’t coming back. No Reaganite worth his salt would embrace Trump’s tariffs, right?
Again, from the ’80 Reagan platform with my emphasis:
The Republican Party believes that protectionist tariffs and quotas are detrimental to our economic well-being. Nevertheless, we insist that our trading partners offer our nation the same level of equity, access, and fairness that we have shown them. The mutual benefits of trade require that it be conducted in the spirit of reciprocity. The Republican Party will consider appropriate measures necessary to restore equal and fair competition between ourselves and our trading partners.
If you asked any conservative if we should unilaterally disarm militarily they would rightfully look at you as if you had grown a second head. Yet, they will insist on complete unilateral disarmament in trade. But, Trump, right?
*Source: Mises Institute
Published in General
I’d rather raise the tarriff on such offenders then subsidize our industry.
But that makes prices even higher.
However, if the higher prices are for the right reasons – labor cost, production inefficiency – higher costs could lead to more innovation and maybe dealing with other stupid policies.
Immigration is the movement of human beings. Trade is the movement of goods and services.
Television sets don’t have the right to claim welfare benefits, to sit on juries or vote in elections. People do.
So, the argument for restricting the flow of Mexican television sets into the United States is weaker than the argument for restricting the flow of Mexican immigrants into the United States.
That said. I am not opposed to all immigration. And I do support restrictions on trade with Iran.
There is no need to take an absolutist position on either trade or immigration. But unless you think shoes should have the right vote, you shouldn’t as opposed to imported shoes as you are to imported people.
You keep confusing rights of citizenship (jury duty, voting, etc) with immigration. The two are not synonymous.
We could discuss the idea of letting people immigrate to the country but not letting them be citizens. We could discuss work visas.
But as a practical matter, immigration does entail granting citizenship to them.
Even if we set the citizenship issue aside, people are not television sets. People are not shoes.
One can be in favor of allowing Korean shoes into the country, the number of which would be set by the free play of supply and demand, while wanting only 50,000 Korean immigrants into the country.
If the distinction between shoes and people doesn’t cut it for you, we have reached an impasse.
I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are other considerations besides pure economics when it comes to allowing people [Labor] to enter the country.
But I also believe the same is true of other imports [goods].
I agree. As I mentioned, I support trade restrictions with Iran for national security reasons.
That depends on who is selling the immigrants, and who is buying them.
:-)
My goodness! Who could have seen this coming!? /sarcasm
That looks like good news. To who, other than Trump, shall we give the credit to?