Posted on 04/08/2016 5:51:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
For years, supporters of free trade have been trying to reach a bipartisan consensus on the issue. They've finally succeeded. Free trade is now unpopular in both parties.
Perhaps because I am a conservative, I can at least understand where most conservatives are coming from in their opposition to free trade. Overt displays of nationalism and patriotism (which are not the same thing, by the way) are not merely tolerated on the right, they're often celebrated. Conservative intellectuals openly extol American exceptionalism while liberal intellectuals tend to deride the notion. Virtually no Republican politician agonizes over wearing a U.S. flag pin.
Meanwhile, the left adores cosmopolitanism, the United Nations and what some people call "transnational progressivism," or "one-worldism." Conservatives tend to scoff at all of the above, preferring national sovereignty and the American Way.
Of course, this stuff can go too far. That "freedom fries" business was silly.
Beyond a sincere misunderstanding about how trade works, the emotional case against free trade on the right boils down to "America first."
That phrase -- a favorite of pointedly nationalistic Donald Trump -- has complicated historical connotations, but let's leave all that aside. According to the protectionists, free trade is bad for American workers and some American businesses. America should come first. So we should do whatever is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to Americans. If doing so is bad for non-Americans, that's not our problem.
I think the math on all this is wrong. Free trade is good for most American workers and all American consumers, not just the "one percent." Indeed, it is largely thanks to trade that the average American worker is in the top 1 percent of earners in the world.
The protectionists are also wrong philosophically. Countries don't trade with others countries; businesses and consumers transact with other businesses and consumers. Protectionism is corporate welfare by other means.
But the point is, I get where conservatives are coming from.
I'm more perplexed about where liberals -- and in Bernie Sanders' case, socialists -- are coming from. Last I checked, liberals considered themselves "citizens of the world." Barack Obama's famous campaign speech in Berlin (which was better in the original Esperanto) was all about the need to tear down the walls between nations. For the last decade, liberals in the Democratic Party and the media have invested enormous amounts of time and energy arguing that American citizenship is almost a technicality. The very term "illegal immigrant" is forbidden by most newspaper style guides.
Sanders says that he believes in "fair trade." What he means is that we can't be expected to do business with countries that pay their workers a lot less than we pay our workers. He suggested to the New York Daily News this week that we should have free trade only with countries that have the same wages and environmental policies as us, which is another way of saying we shouldn't trade with poor countries.
In practical terms, Sanders wants to keep billions of (non-white) people poor -- very poor. If America were a flea market, his policy would be akin to saying, "Poor people of color cannot sell their wares here, even if customers want to buy them."
International trade, led by the United States, has resulted in the largest, fastest decrease in extreme poverty in human history. Roughly 700 million Chinese people alone have escaped extreme poverty since 1980, and most of that is attributable to China's decision to embrace the market economy and international trade. Want to keep Africa as poor as possible? Throw up as many trade barriers as you can
Goldberg is focusing on what the mainstream media say about free trade, not what conservatives really think. The problem with free trade is that it only works when there are no bad actors. Free trade works among the United States, because despite some very strong differences, there are no bad actors deliberately trying to undermine their neighbors. That is not true with the participants in all of the existing free trade agreements. Almost all of the other countries are bad actors, will not follow the rules and abuse our trust. That is the problem. I think we could have a free trade agreement with countries like Australia, Canada, Poland, Ukraine and most of eastern Europe. And that’s about it.
Thanks much for your reply. It’s been pretty lonely around here pitching freedom of trade. No longer a popular idea these days around Good Old Free Republic.
Ridiculous to think the USA is not in a one sided trade war now. This just shows how disingenuous your whole argument is.
None of you Free Traitors™ can ever explain how the USA did so well as an extreme protectionist nation for the first 130 years of its existence. Please let me hear you bad mouth President Washington for signing tariff act after tariff act. Go ahead and trash the founding fathers for protectionism. I dare you. You don't have the cojones.
Geez, Free Traitors™ tell us trade deficits don’t matter but lament socialist and liberals when they claim budget deficits don’t matter. What a crock of BS. Go away you make me nauseous you hypocrite. Limbeciles.
The history of tariffs is interesting. The American Revolution was fought in good part against the mercantilist (protectionist) policies of Great Britain.
Once the US was formed, there has been a continual struggle between free-traders and protectionists, and the tariff has gone up and down. In the years before the income tax, some (smallish) level of tariff was needed to fund the government. It’s not true that we were “an extreme protectionist nation for the first 130 years”. You need to distinguish between (low) tariffs for revenue generation and (high) tariffs for protectionism.
The Tariff of 1789 was generally not high, 5% for most items, and the primary purpose was revenue generation; this was in the days before an income tax. It was only in 1816 that a strongly protectionist tariff was passed. (It’s not the Founding Fathers who were extremely protectionist, but the next generation.)
In the 19th century, the economy could tolerate some protectionism. With no income tax, without onerous government regulations, and with the built-in growth of a continent to settle, we had a primarily free-market economy in spite of the tariff. The tariff was a drag on the economy, but the positives generally overwhelmed that. (On the other hand, we would have grown even more without protectionist tariffs, and studies have shown that the early protectionist tariffs didn’t really help the industries they were intended to assist.)
Now, with an income tax and with overbearing regulations, we can ill afford the fallacy of protectionism. Speaking of “cojones”, I notice that you didn’t address the main point — that protectionist policies produce a drag on the economy as a whole, even though they may benefit a small number of individuals. Their cost is far greater than their benefit.
Finally, calling me a “traitor” is offensive. I want what is best for the US, and I believe you do too. You may think I am wrong, and that the policies I propose would be bad for the country, but that doesn’t make me a traitor; it would just make me wrong. I think you are wrong, and the the policies you propose would be bad for the country, but that doesn’t make you a traitor either; it would just make you wrong.
You may want to be careful on any platform where people use real names or are identifiable — calling someone a traitor may be libelous under those circumstances.
Thank you — I feel the same way.
After 30 years of destructive economic policies that started with with NATFA, anyone who defends the current trade situation at this point is a Free Traitor™. It is a perfect name for them. So are you threatening me? LOL.
| U.S. Historical Tariffs (Customs) Collections by Federal Government (All dollar amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars)[1][2][3][4][5][6] |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| Year | Tariff Income |
Budget % Tariff |
Federal Receipts |
Income Tax |
Payroll Tax |
Average Tariff |
| 1792 | $4.4 | 95.0% | $4.6 | $- | $- | 15.1% |
| 1795 | $5.6 | 91.6% | $6.1 | $- | $- | 8.0% |
| 1800 | $9.1 | 83.7% | $10.8 | $- | $- | 10.0% |
| 1805 | $12.9 | 95.4% | $13.6 | $- | $- | 10.7% |
| 1810 | $8.6 | 91.5% | $9.4 | $- | $- | 10.1% |
| 1815 | $7.3 | 46.4% | $15.7 | $- | $- | 6.5% |
| 1820 | $15.0 | 83.9% | $17.9 | $- | $- | 20.2% |
| 1825 | $20.1 | 97.9% | $20.5 | $- | $- | 22.3% |
| 1830 | $21.9 | 88.2% | $24.8 | $- | $- | 35.0% |
| 1835 | $19.4 | 54.1% | $35.8 | $- | $- | 14.2% |
| 1840 | $12.5 | 64.2% | $19.5 | $- | $- | 12.7% |
| 1845 | $27.5 | 91.9% | $30.0 | $- | $- | 24.3% |
| 1850 | $39.7 | 91.0% | $43.6 | $- | $- | 22.9% |
| 1855 | $53.0 | 81.2% | $65.4 | $- | $- | 20.6% |
| 1860 | $53.2 | 94.9% | $56.1 | $- | $- | 15.0% |
| 1863 | $63.0 | 55.9% | $112.7 | $- | $- | 25.9% |
| 1864 | $102.3 | 38.7% | $264.6 | $- | $- | 32.3% |
| 1865 | $84.9 | 25.4% | $333.7 | $61.0 | $- | 35.6% |
| 1870 | $194.5 | 47.3% | $411.3 | $37.8 | $- | 44.6% |
| 1875 | $157.2 | 54.6% | $288.0 | $- | $- | 36.1% |
| 1880 | $184.5 | 55.3% | $333.5 | $- | $- | 27.6% |
| 1885 | $181.5 | 56.1% | $323.7 | $- | $- | 32.6% |
| 1890 | $229.7 | 57.0% | $403.1 | $- | $- | 27.6% |
| 1900 | $233.2 | 41.1% | $567.2 | $- | $- | 27.4% |
| 1910 | $233.7 | 34.6% | $675.2 | $- | $- | 15.0% |
| 1913 | $318.8 | 44.0% | $724.1 | $35.0 | $- | 17.6% |
| 1915 | $209.8 | 30.1% | $697.9 | $47.0 | $- | 12.5% |
| 1916 | $213.7 | 27.3% | $782.5 | $121.0 | $- | 8.9% |
| 1917 | $225.9 | 20.1% | $1,124.3 | $373.0 | $- | 7.7% |
| 1918 | $947.0 | 25.8% | $3,664.6 | $2,720.0 | $- | 31.2% |
| 1920 | $886.0 | 13.2% | $6,694.6 | $4,032.0 | $- | 16.8% |
| 1925 | $547.6 | 14.5% | $3,780.1 | $1,697.0 | $- | 13.0% |
| 1928 | $566.0 | 14.0% | $4,042.3 | $2,088.0 | $- | 13.8% |
| 1930 | $587.0 | 14.1% | $4,177.9 | $2,300.0 | $- | 19.2% |
| 1935 | $318.8 | 8.4% | $3,800.5 | $1,100.0 | $- | 15.6% |
| 1940 | $331.0 | 6.1% | $5,387.1 | $2,100.0 | $800.0 | 12.6% |
| 1942 | $369.0 | 2.9% | $12,799.1 | $7,900.0 | $1,200.0 | 13.4% |
| 1944 | $417.0 | 0.9% | $44,148.9 | $34,400.0 | $1,900.0 | 10.6% |
| 1946 | $424.0 | 0.9% | $46,400.0 | $28,000.0 | $1,900.0 | 7.7% |
| 1948 | $408.0 | 0.9% | $47,300.0 | $29,000.0 | $2,500.0 | 5.5% |
| 1950 | $407.0 | 0.9% | $43,800.0 | $26,200.0 | $3,000.0 | 4.5% |
| 1951 | $609.0 | 1.1% | $56,700.0 | $35,700.0 | $4,100.0 | 5.5% |
| 1955 | $585.0 | 0.8% | $71,900.0 | $46,400.0 | $6,100.0 | 5.1% |
| 1960 | $1,105.0 | 1.1% | $99,800.0 | $62,200.0 | $12,200.0 | 7.3% |
| 1965 | $1,442.0 | 1.2% | $116,800.0 | $74,300.0 | $22,200.0 | 6.7% |
| 1970 | $2,430.0 | 1.3% | $192,800.0 | $123,200.0 | $44,400.0 | 6.0% |
| 1975 | $3,676.0 | 1.3% | $279,100.0 | $163,000.0 | $84,500.0 | 3.7% |
| 1980 | $7,174.0 | 1.4% | $517,100.0 | $308,700.0 | $157,800.0 | 2.9% |
| 1985 | $12,079.0 | 1.6% | $734,000.0 | $395,900.0 | $255,200.0 | 3.6% |
| 1990 | $11,500.0 | 1.1% | $1,032,000.0 | $560,400.0 | $380,000.0 | 2.8% |
| 1995 | $19,301.0 | 1.4% | $1,361,000.0 | $747,200.0 | $484,500.0 | 2.6% |
| 2000 | $19,914.0 | 1.0% | $2,025,200.0 | $1,211,700.0 | $652,900.0 | 1.6% |
| 2005 | $23,379.0 | 1.1% | $2,153,600.0 | $1,205,500.0 | $794,100.0 | 1.4% |
| 2010 | $25,298.0 | 1.2% | $2,162,700.0 | $1,090,000.0 | $864,800.0 | 1.3% |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||||
| Notes: All dollar amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars Income taxes include Individual and Corporate taxes Federal expenditures often exceed Revenue by temporary borrowings. Initially the U.S. Federal Government was financed mainly by customs(tariffs Average Tariff Rate % = Customs Revenue/ cost of Imports (goods). Other taxes collected are: Income Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Inheritance, Tariffs—often called Customs or duties on imports, etc. Income Taxes began in 1913 with the passage of 16th Amendment. Payroll taxes are Social Security and Medicare taxes Payroll Taxes began in 1940. Many Federal government Excise taxes are assigned to Trust Funds and are collected for and “dedicated” to a particular Trust. Sources: |
||||||
 |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
Factually challenged? I don't think so—it may be Wikipedia that is factually challenged here. The Tariff of 1789 had only a 5% tariff on most items. It's true that tariffs on some items were higher, but I can find no other source saying that the average tariff was anything like 15%.
The general consensus is that the primary purpose of that early tariff was revenue generation, with only a mild protectionist component. (Alexander Hamilton promoted greater protectionism, but that was not the universal view.) That changed in 1816, when the country moved to large-scale protectionism.
By the way, the big lesson in your table is that the income tax has been a disaster, enabling a massive growth in government.
I notice that you still haven't addressed the standard arguments in economics, known since Adam Smith and David Ricardo, that free trade maximizes economic growth and benefits the country as a whole. Protectionism sometimes benefits some small portion of the population, but the total cost to the country far outweighs the potential benefits to people in protected industries.
This is just one example of the general economic principle that government interference in the economy will disrupt pricing signals, distort investment, and reduce economic growth. From a practical point of view, it deprives people of the benefits of comparative advantage and other aspects of a free market, at the same imposing government restrictions on people's natural right to buy from and sell to whomever they choose.
Why don't you point out specifically what is wrong with the well-known economic arguments in favor of free trade?
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.