Free Trade Doesn't Work: Why America Needs a Tariff

Free Trade Doesnt Work ^ | January 30, 2010 | Ian Fletcher

[ianfletcher]

If you already know free trade is a mistake, but don't know how to prove it or what to do about it, then this book is for you.

If you still think free trade is good for America and the world, you're in for a big surprise...

[cripplecreek]

Free trade is fine. Globally managed trade is what sucks.

[Texas Eagle]

(sniff), (sniff)....

[ABQHispConservative]

Utter nonsense!

[TexasGus]

intellectual fools will always persist. calling pat buchanon anyone?

[Impy]

My view is simple.

Tariffs=taxes

Taxes=bad

[Texas Eagle]

It’s probably just a coincidence that your screen name is the same as the author’s but I wonder if the book goes into the effects unions, regulations and frivolous lawsuits have had on manufacturing in this country.

[JayVee]

Does anyone today realize that the increased tariffs brought about by the Smoot-Hawley Act contributed greatly to the Great Deppression?

[wolfpat]

You said what I was going to say. But you said it better than I could have.

[sionnsar]

Welcome to Free Republic

[Wissa]

It’s probably just a coincidence that your screen name is the same as the author’s but I wonder if the book goes into the effects unions, regulations and frivolous lawsuits have had on manufacturing in this country.

Well, the book gets great reviews from the heads of unions, if that's any indication.

[TexasGus]

i guess hiding behind unionism and inferior products, pricing them expensively and forcing the population to take them is a brilliant idea. calling venezuela. calling zimbabwe. calling the unionist foes of productivity and wealth creation. calling other fools please.

[eclecticEel]

Repeal the 16th amendment and let Washington go back to raising revenue the way the founders envisioned - through tariffs.

[miliantnutcase]

Agreed. I wonder if the author takes into account the corporate tax burden in this country.

[Oceander]

You'd be in for a big surprise only if you didn't think for yourself. Tariffs have never worked to do anything other than impoverish ordinary working Americans and enrich the parasites who have managed to co-opt the machinery of the government (i.e., the liberals at this stage of the game):

[Cheap_Hessian]

Wow, this book manages to be anti-producer and anti-consumer at the same time! It is pro-union though...

[OneWingedShark]

>My view is simple.
>Tariffs=taxes
>Taxes=bad

I see, but that is [perhaps] a bit too simple of a view. dictionary.com has the following definition:
tariff
–noun
1. an official list or table showing the duties or customs imposed by a government on imports or exports.
2. the schedule or system of duties so imposed.
3. any duty or rate of duty in such a list or schedule.
4. any table of charges, as of a railroad, bus line, etc.
5. bill; cost; charge.
–verb (used with object)
6. to subject to a tariff.
7. to put a valuation on according to a tariff.

Before the imposition of the income tax, virtually all taxation (read governmental revenue) was from tariffs; but this might not apply to consumer goods because tariffs are ONLY applied to imports/exports. This means that if we were a self-sufficient country [and we VERY EASILY could be] then any Citizen/legal-resident would be able to live without paying a single cent in tariffs.

[Impy]

I sure do. Hoover’s biggest single mistake. Back then the GOP was more protectionist and the rats free trade. There is much crossover but it’s mostly the other way around now.

[Mariner]

Free Trade is a death march for an advanced society and economy.

Soon, the 3rd world would be your master.

They are NOT going to play by any rule that puts them at a disadvantage.

Either we take charge of our economic future, or they will.

[OneWingedShark]

I think we’re mixing our definitions a bit. Free trade, as I understand it, is free as in ‘unrestricted.’ The opposite of Japan’s anti-trade stance when Admiral Perry burst in on the scene.

What are you defining it as?