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.
Which is exactly the use almost every person arguing against free trade has made on this thread . You just won't admit it.
- 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.
Which is what I am advocating here, as well. I have argued successfully that nations who do not recognize the basic rights of their citizens are competing illegaly.
- To persuade other countries to open up their markets.
Again, you make my point. India, China, South Korea, and other "free trade" partners impose tariffs on US manufactured goods. China has a 100% tariff on Japanese-brand cars assembled in US plants, along with many other tariffs. I worked for an auto parts mfg., and the Chinese tariff on our product was 25%. Your "free" trade is an illusion. I advocate tariffs, you seem to support the status quo, which is for the US to go begging the WTO for fair trade.
In a series of posts I’ve tried to show you that other legal powers can be abused
We're not talking about other legal powers, we're talking about tariffs.
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
But it is a discussion about trading with rivals, both military, and economic, and about America being able to retain its position as defender of the free world. If the manufacturing base is lost, that is precisely what is happening. If you think a tariff battle is the worst thing that could happen to the world, wait until our "trading partners" starting dictating the internal and foreign policy of a toothless America drowning in debt.
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.
You are correct on both accounts. I was too quick to attack personally, and you did use acidic sarcasm very early in the debate (in your very first post to me, if I remember correctly).
we don’t have a relationship that would allow us to move into any greater depth with this. Perhaps another time.
The debate over free trade is a hot one, and I have had both reaonable debates and arguments with people who's sole repertoire consists of calling people a commie. I would say our debate devolved quickly, but even in that state we both tried to maintain some semblance of reason, and so I have enjoyed it. It's too bad names were called, but that's the way life is sometimes. I admit I get more enjoyment from a debate than I do from an argument, but smug sarcasm is a button of mine that will get me going right away, and I admit I enjoy a good flame war once somebody pushes it. But I do hope you'll reconsider on another foreign trade issue thread sometime. Regardless of what has happened here, I am sure I will enjoy a good old fashioned debate, argument, flame war, or whatever happens in the future. I have not taken anything too personally, and I don't hold grudges.