So far, everything you have said is simple.
1) I said that people (like you) were promoting the abuse of tariffs.
Imposing tariffs is not an abuse, it is an inumerated, traditional power of our congress. "Abuse" is an opinion of yours that has no basis in fact. It is a fantasy. I will go back and forth with you forever, if necessary. The bottom line is you are flat out wrong. I have history and the exact wording of the constitution on my side, you have nothing but faith in failed economic theory.
2) You say that since the founding fathers designed Congress with the power to impose tariff, criticism of that abuse power amounts to criticism of the founding fathers. Remember?
No, you said that tariffs are an abuse. You have yet to prove that the imposition of a tariff is an abuse in this case. Clearly it is not, it is an inumerated power.
3) I pointed out that Congresses could abuse any power, specifically the power to declare war. And just because they were given that power, it does not make any abuse of it justified and any criticism of it a criticism of the founding fathers.
You are confusing use with abuse. You are railing against tariffs, claiming any tariff is an abuse. If I am wrong, then why don't you give me an example of a tariff that is not an abuse? I'll bet you can't, because in your "free" trade dogmatic mind, any tariff at all is an abuse. If that is the case, then why is the power plainly inumerated in Article I, section 8 of the US constitution. I guess you think the powers listed there are just for laughs, huh?
This is not an article regarding unique Chinese trade issues.
Ha! Ha! That's not what you said. I mentioned China, and you said it was not about China at all. You're just embarassed because the article is in fact about China.
I don’t have time to continue a discussion based on out of control emotions.
You are making baseless charges about emotion and running because you have lost the argument.
One more time: If the imposition of tariffs to equalize labor rates is an abuse, give me an example of a tariff that is not an abuse.
You're starting from the ABCs here. I’ll summarize.
Abuse or use of tariffs is a matter of opinion, just like with virtually other every legal activity, from drug use to incarceration to taxation etc... Regarding tariffs, let’s start with the extremes (the obvious)
Uses:
- To protect the most critical industries to national security like food, fuel weapons, critical raw materials etc…
- To protect against state sponsored or otherwise illegal competition, like Japan subsidizing auto manufacturing in the early 80s, and their automakers colluding to share technology and marketing information.
- To persuade other countries to open up their markets.
An obvious abuses would be to tax imports in order to protect an uncompetitive business in exchange for whatever, campaign help, votes, friendship, nostalgia, etc…
Very early in this thread I made a case that tariffs to stop outsourcing generally have a negative impact on our economy and our jobs (excluding a country that we’re in a cold war with like China which you have a hard time accepting as a different discussion.)
You replied that because Congress had the power to tax imports, it couldn’t be abused. You did so by implying that the founding fathers must have been protectionists if excessive tariff use (protectionism) was wrong.
In a series of posts I’ve tried to show you that other legal powers can be abused, that just because authority is legal does not mean that any use of it is good. I honestly don’t know how anyone can believe any differently. I don’t know if I just didn’t communicate that well, or if you’re just being stubborn. The shrillness and emotionalism in your posts implies the latter.
Regarding the use of tariffs to “equalize wages” as being good or bad, that’s a discussion that I’m not willing to invest any more time in with you here. Just getting you to understand that this is not a discussion of trading with a military rival or that any tariffs could possibly be an abuse is too time consuming To make it worse, you’re too quick to attack personally (now my intellectual honesty) just because of my sarcastic tone. Perhaps I employ sarcasm too quickly. Whatever the case, we don’t have a relationship that would allow us to move into any greater depth with this. Perhaps another time.