Posted on 12/25/2006 8:54:12 AM PST by A. Pole
I've posted enough of Paul's columns that I don't need to refute him. He refutes himself.
I think you meant to direct your reply to someone else.
Yeah, I wish we could be more like Japan and Germany with their trade surpluses.
A U.S. dollar in 1900 was made of gold
You think we should go back on the gold standard?
a U.S. Dollar today is paper and has 3 cents in purchasing value compared to the old dollar.
Who told you it was a good idea to hold dollars? You should try assets instead.
I may be rightfully accused of many things; however, "historical ignorance" doesn't happen to be one them! Of course America's financial problems started before Smoot-Hawley was introduced. I merely used it as a catch phrase; something with which to beat the pro-tariff crowd over the head with. S-H exacerbated an already deleterious situation and tariffs, now, are most assuredly NOT a work,able answer to any real or perceived trade "problem".
Interesting and well written post.
Demonizing tariffs by mentioning the Smoot-Hawley Act during a worldwide depression ignores that the U.S. has had Tariffs from the First Congress to this day. If Tariffs were as bad as you claim, the negative effects would have been noticed as far back as 1789.
The real question is whether foreigners should pay tariffs to fund the Federal Government as was intended originally in the Constitution or should Americans pay income, gift, and estate taxes instead. I prefer abolishing income, gift, and estate taxes and having a tariff on foreign products. Here is a historical chronology of Federal tariffs.
Federal Government
Tariff Table
Major Tariff and Trade Legislation
Year Name Description
1789 Tariff of 1789 Primarily for revenue; some protection for "infant industries;" (Washington administration).
1816 Tariff of 1816 First protective tariff; Clay and Calhoun supported as part of American System; Southern cotton growers opposed; (Madison administration).
1824 Tariff of 1824 Further heightening of rates; growing opposition from South; (Monroe administration).
1828 "Tariff of Abominations" Higher protective measures for New England mills; Southerners outraged, including Calhoun; (J.Q. Adams administration).
1832 Tariff of 1832 Moderate reform returned rates to 1824 levels; unmoved South Carolina sparked Nullification Crisis; (Jackson administration).
1833 Tariff of 1833 Clay compromise; gradual reduction of rates over time to 1816 levels; New England states opposed; (Jackson administration).
1842 Tariff of 1842 Upward revision forced by depression following Panic of 1837; (Tyler administration).
1846 Walker Tariff Democrats controlled Congress; West supported tariff reduction in hope of selling grain abroad; move toward tariff for revenue only; (Polk administration).
1857 Tariff of 1857 Downward tariff revision to almost free trade status; North opposed; (Buchanan administration).
1861-
1865 Wartime tariff acts Steadily increased protectionism to help fund Union war costs; South not represented in Congress during Civil War; (Buchanan and Lincoln administrations).
1872 Tariff of 1872 Post-war reform tariff, reduced rates on some manufactured goods; (Grant administration).
1875 Tariff of 1875 Continued downward revision; average rates reduced by 10 percent; (Grant administration).
1883 "Mongrel" Tariff Republicans abandoned reform; compromise satisfied no one; (Arthur administration).
1890 McKinley Tariff Highest protective tariff to date: average 48 percent; (B. Harrison administration).
1894 Wilson-Gorman Tariff Reform measure crippled by Senate amendments; (Cleveland 2nd administration).
1897 Dingley Tariff Blatantly protective measure; some rates at 57 percent; (McKinley administration).
1909 Payne-Aldrich Tariff Attempt to lower average level of duties; little meaningful reform; Progressives angered; (Taft administration).
1913 Underwood-Simmons Tariff Democrats took control of Congress; general duty reduction soon negated by outbreak of World War I; federal income tax provision; (Wilson administration).
1921 Emergency Tariff Republicans returned to power and responded to mini-depression; raised agricultural rates to protect farmers; only a stopgap measure until new law written; (Harding administration).
1922 Fordney-McCumber Tariff Increased rates sharply; president empowered to adjust rates; Tariff Commission created to advise president; (Harding administration).
1930 Hawley-Smoot Tariff Raised U.S. duties to an all-time high; 1,000 economists protested; foreign retaliation; (Hoover administration).
1934 Hull Trade Pacts Reciprocal treaties to reduce tariffs and stimulate trade during depression; (F. Roosevelt administration).
1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) United Nations organization created to seek tariff reductions.
1962 Trade Expansion Act President received authority to negotiate tariff reductions up to 50 percent; aimed primarily at European Economic Community (later European Union); (Kennedy administration).
1963-
1967 "Kennedy Round" GATT talks aimed at tariff reduction, primarily with Western Europe; approximate 33 percent reductions; (L. Johnson administration).
1973-
1979 "Tokyo Round" GATT talks aimed at non-tariff trade barriers; included non-GATT members; (Nixon administration).
1974 Trade Act of 1974 President given authority to end tariff duties against products from developing nations; (Ford administration).
1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) U.S., Canada and Mexico end most trade barriers; (Clinton administration).
1994 GATT/WTO New GATT agreement signed; World Trade Organization (WTO) formed; (Clinton administration).
Isolationism combined with protectionism, is not what any American should yearn for; especially not in the 21rst century. Are you familiar with the over reaction of SOX ( Sarbanes-Oxly )and it's intentioned consequences? Of not, go learn about it and why the NYSE's attempt to take over/buyout Euronext is so important ( and which it looks as though they are about to do ) and why the congress has already somewhat gutted SOX.
Foreigners pay tariffs? I thought the final buyer of the product got stuck with the tariff?
If Tariffs were as bad as you claim, the negative effects would have been noticed as far back as 1789.
As the following graph shows, lower tariffs have destroyed our manufacturing production.
Your graphs/statistics didn't show on my computer - although the last statistics you put up did - neither likely provides any reliable information.
Corrections to your remarks, "Foreigners pay tariffs? . . . I thought the final buyer got stuck with the Tariff?" Answer: No American is required to pay a tariff - The tariff is meant to encourage employment and domestic manufacturing - therefore to avoid payment, manufacture the product yourself within the U.S. or buy an American made product.
Lower tariffs destroyed our manufacturing production . . . . You must be smoking some strange weed. I can believe former Republican Presidents Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt on tariffs promoting employment and American manufacturing or I can believe you and the other Spicolis out there on Free Trade. I would say, (as would Mr. Hand did in Fast Times at Ridgemont High) you are wasting our time, Spicoli. :)
More reliable than the info you've provided.
No American is required to pay a tariff
Is this your admission that the tariffs which are paid would be paid by Americans?
The tariff is meant to encourage employment and domestic manufacturing -
Do we need to encourage employment? You know, with unemployment at 4.5%? And why do we need to encourage manufacturing? Didn't you see my post where I showed we manufactured $1.79 trillion last year? That's more than Japan and China combined. Despite your proof of no American goods on WalMart shelves.
Lower tariffs destroyed our manufacturing production . . . . You must be smoking some strange weed.
You would have gotten the joke if you had seen the chart.
I can believe former Republican Presidents Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt on tariffs promoting employment and American manufacturing
I prefer Ronald Reagan:
We live on a continent whose three countries possess the assets to make it the strongest, most prosperous and self-sufficient area on Earth. Within the borders of this North American continent are the food, resources, technology and undeveloped territory which, properly managed, could dramatically improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants.
It is no accident that this unmatched potential for progress and prosperity exists in three countries with such long-standing heritages of free government. A developing closeness among Canada, Mexico and the United States -- a North American accord -- would permit achievement of that potential in each country beyond that which I believe any of them -- strong as they are -- could accomplish in the absence of such cooperation. In fact, the key to our own future security may lie in both Mexico and Canada becoming much stronger countries than they are today. Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1979.
Best to analyze what Ronald Reagan did versus what he said. Here is an excerpt on Reagan's record,
Volume VI, No. 5
May 1988
Ronald Reagan: Protectionist
by Sheldon L. Richman
Mark Shields, a columnist for the Washington Post, recently wrote of President Reagan's "blind devotion to the doctrine of free trade." If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it must be blind because he has been way off the mark. In fact, he has been the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.
Admittedly, his rhetoric has been confusing. In 1986 Reagan said, "Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize. . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: the freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations."
But he advocated protectionism early in his 1980 campaign, saying to the U.S. auto industry: "Japan is part of the problem. This is where government can be legitimately involved. That is, to convince the Japanese in one way or another that, in their own interests, that deluge of cars must be slowed while our industry gets back on its feet..."
When he imposed a 100% tariff on selected Japanese electronic products for allegedly "dumping" computer memory chips, he said he did it "to enforce the principles of free and fair trade." And Treasury Secretary James A. Baker has boasted about the protectionist record: Reagan "has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century."
It's true that the administration has fought with protectionists in Congress, but only over who should have the power to restrict trade. As Reagan put it, "It's better policy to allow for presidents—me or my successors—to have options for dealing with trade problems."
Defenders of the Reagan policies will say that he has engaged in protectionism to open foreign markets. But they cannot deny that one-quarter of all imports are today restricted, a 100% increase over 1980.
A tariff is a tax - and Americans are required to pay income tax every April 15th after collecting all their records and going to accountants. Given that taxes will have to be paid, I (and the Founding Fathers) prefer a tax on imported goods versus an inquisition to determine the correct amount of income taxes. A tariff is an avoidable tax (simply buy American made goods) - but no-one can avoid income taxes unless they want to live and eat out of dumpsters.
You - we don't need higher employment . . . Answer: Employment in export industries of manufacturing provides high wages - Employment in fast food restaurants like McDonalds or at Walmart provides low wages. If you confuse high quality jobs in factories (which are getting scarcer with free trade and outsourcing) like this with burger flipping jobs, you may end up in a McDonald's yourself one day. You can lecture the illegal aliens you end up working with about the benefits of free trade, assuming they speak any English.
Were average tariffs higher or lower after Reagan left office than when he entered office?
A tariff is a tax
Excellent. Glad you realized how wrong this was: The real question is whether foreigners should pay tariffs to fund the Federal Government as was intended originally in the Constitution
A tariff is an avoidable tax (simply buy American made goods)
So if I want to avoid the tariff on foreign sugar, I should just buy the cheaper American sugar?
Answer: Employment in export industries of manufacturing provides high wages
Yeah, how does raising tariffs help us export more?
Spicoli - Last round of your questions before you fail the class.
You: Ronald Reagan was better than Abraham Lincoln, McKinley, and Teddy Roosevelt since he was 100% for free trade. Answer: Ronald Reagan increased tariffs more than any president since Herbert Hoover, per the excerpt. Reagan gave lip service to free trade to please the Spicolis out there - and protected American industries like the automobile industry with his actions.
So if I want to avoid tariff on foreign sugar, I should just buy cheaper American sugar. Answer: If you want to have your own hive of honeybees, you need pay nothing for sweeteners. If you want to plant sugarbeets and refine your own sugar, you need pay nothing. If you prefer Americans have jobs in the sugar industry, pay the price for American sugar. If you prefer foreign sugar, pay the tariff. Simple, isn't it - no forms, no audit, no April 15th - pay the tariff at the store and fire the IRS.
You - How does raising tariffs help us export more? Answer, If you don't have a manufacturing base or have a disappearing manufacturing base (as Ronald Reagan discovered in the auto industry), tariffs save your factories and skilled labor. You can't export manufactured goods if your factories have been closed by cheap imports from China. You can export more if your factories still exist due to the higher tariff versus non- existent factories with no tariff.
Class is over, Spicoli. Even your hero Ronald Reagan was against you, not just Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, and Teddy Roosevelt. Time for you to leave school and look for one of those plentiful low-paying jobs at McDonalds or Walmart, selling cheap Chinese goods. This is your Mr. Hand, signing out.
Both Paleos and Neocons have moved too far to the left. Even though the author tried to say that Paleos care about small government, I've never seen one that does - especially when it comes to the government's power to legislate and enforce morality.
Where did I say that?
Answer: Ronald Reagan increased tariffs more than any president since Herbert Hoover
Prove it. What were average tariffs in 1980? What were they in 1989?
Answer:
You didn't answer the question.
Answer, If you don't have a manufacturing base or have a disappearing manufacturing base
Apparently you have a comprehension problem. We manufactured $1.79 trillion last year. So much for disappearing.
Class is over, Spicoli.
If you say so, Barbarino.
How much extra should Americans pay for each sugar industry job that is saved?
First of all, protection vs. free trade isn't an issue that you can reliably resolve in movement terms. You have to look at the specific cases.
There's more room for movement activism as regards immigration, since mainstream politicians have ignored the issue so long. But movement activists often end up having the opposite effect from what they intend.
Tom Tancredo's comments on Miami are a case in point. Activists can be too focused on keeping the movement going, not on actually governing and putting reforms through.
And a lot of rubbish gets dragged along by political movements. I got to the point where I couldn't read Chronicles: every issue had at least one article attacking Abraham Lincoln or defending Serbia.
The leading paleocons are too creepy and crankish -- Tom Fleming, Lew Rockwell, Clyde Wilson, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran. The leading neocons aren't my cup of tea either, and I wouldn't vote for them.
Raw intellectual politics isn't so appealing a thing. Ideological controversies and concepts have to percolate down to leaders who are actually in touch with the public and with the specific facts at issue, rather than involved solely in issuing manifestos and attacking each other.
Not really an answer to the charge that lust for power, ignorance (of he difference between a confederation, a republic, and a democracy) and general perfidy on the part of several different parties have disgracefully corrupted the wise intents and words of Jefferson and Washington with regard to just what the hell the government should or should not be doing!
Maybe not, but there was a difference between Washington and Jefferson. Jefferson, at least when he was in opposition or out of office, objected to just about everything the federal government did. He wasn't so particular when he or his associates ran the government, though.
Washington wasn't so dogmatic as Jefferson could be. George Washington could see the federal government taking on more functions than those that were specifically alotted to it in the Constitution.
There's also a big difference between Washington on the one hand and Calhoun or Jefferson Davis on the other. Calhoun and Davis weren't lacking the hypocrisy that Jefferson sometimes showed either: they opposed the federal government but weren't true friends of liberty when they had state or rival national goverments under their own control.
There's certainly a case to be made that the federal government should have a smaller role. But some of the paleos tend to get involved with some radical perspectives that George Washington wouldn't have agreed with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.