Posted on 04/05/2018 1:53:27 PM PDT by Thalean
In a recent piece for the Washington Post, former CNN correspondent Heather Long and her colleague Andrew Van Dam contend that President Trump’s tariffs will hurt Trump voters the most. Their conclusion is unsurprising, as the mainstream media’s raison d’être is to rebuke the president and gaslight his supporters into thinking they have cause to abandon him.
Don’t let them fool you. Tariffs are in America’s best interest, and they will help precisely the people Trump says they will: the working class.
Long and Van Dam argue that tariffs are bad because they increase prices and could cause a trade war. Higher prices are bad for American consumers, and will disproportionately hurt America’s poor “Walmart shoppers,” they contend. This sounds reasonable, but only because it ignores the other side of the equation.
In reality, every consumer is also a producer, and therefore what harms producers invariably harms consumers down the road.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
BINGO!
Tariffs are in America’s best interest, and they will help precisely the people Trump says they will: the working class.
**************
The use of terms like “working class” is a Marxist tactic. People outside that group often work more and watch tv less.
Simple: The more money we have in THIS country the better.
Haha. See what happens when you think! You put the superficial author to earned shame. Haha again.
Trump is doing the right thing placing tariffs on Chinese imports - but people should not forget it’s a weapon - a retaliation against aggressive and offensive trade tactics China has employed against us for years.
It’s a war that China started and we have to fight back. Tariffs are the only way to fight back. It’s long overdue and I’m glad Trump has the balls to do it.
But there’s a danger in exaggerating the benifits of tariffs and minimizing the detrimental effect. People, especially Trump supporters should manage their expectations and brace themselves for a tough time if we are drawn further into a trade war.
US prices will go up immediately, but US production capacity, US jobs and improved terms with and access to foriegn markets, and other benifits of fair trade will not materialize right away.
War is Hell, even trade war, and most benifits to the winner aren’t realized until after the war is won.
I’m for the tariffs but people shouldn’t expect the economy to be stronger in the short run. They’ll just be disappointed.
Personally, I find the phrase “working class” far less objectionable and significantly offensively Marxist than “the masses.” Personally, I can live with “working class” but I sincerely wish we could all just eject the phrase “the masses” from our “collective’ vocabulary, and let that ugly phrase once again be exclusive to the “Daily Worker.”
I liked his idea that if Americans aren’t buying Chinese, then they are buying American, which increases America’s market share
A nicely articulated statement. ( and you obviously know going down this road can be dangerous, and the unintended consequence’s are numerous.)
I would just add for clarity:
Tariff’s are nothing but sales-taxes on purchases of specified imported goods.
China doesn’t pay the Tariffs, we do. And the money goes into the Federal Treasury to be squandered.
And just on a personal note, I’m happy to give the Chinese my fiat paper money, for actual hard goods.
Please note that tariffs must be paid at the port of entry prior to allowing the goods into the country.
You only pay the sales tax (tariff) if you buy the more expensive goods.
Yep - love the way Trump responded when China “retaliated” for his proposal of $30 billion in tariffs - upped the ante to $100 billion...
“And just on a personal note, I’m happy to give the Chinese my fiat paper money, for actual hard goods.”
I know we sound money advocates spend a lot of time referring to fiat money as being worthless, so I understand your sentiments.
Unfortunately, fiat money is far, far worse than worthless. True, it’s purchasing power continues to be worth less as the central bank has no incentive to limit its production, but it still has purchasing power - less than it had before - but purchasing power nonetheless.
Here’s the rub: Newly created fiat money has the same purchasing power as fiat money already in circulation, so while each $ is worth less, it’s only the holders of existing fiat $ who have experienced a decrease in worth - the top tier banks who just printed the new fiat $ out of thin air have experienced a huge increase in purchasing power. Most people don’t know this, but the top tier banks actually own the newly created money - they can lend it, spend it, buy stocks or bonds with it, replenish their reserves - it’s their money and it was created out of nothing.
What just happened? Wealth did not get created - it got redistributed.
For decades, the Chinese have been taking our fiat money, and using it to buy up real estate and other capital assets in the US. They own significant shares of the US banks that we borrow money from.
None of this tragic transfer of wealth would have been possible if we’d had any kind of sound money policy in the US.
The Federal Reserve constitutes by far the biggest swindle in history and there’s hardly anyone who understands what’s being done to them.
The supposedly smart financially savvy MBAs from Wharton or Harvard - they have been so completely brainwashed that they talk gibberish when it comes to money and banking. They try to unravel all the debits and credits and throw out terms like “velocity of money” and “fractional reserves” - but their brains get tired and they wind up justifying it - convinced that in the end it must come out fair and square - but it doesnt! Not even close!
And that’s our smart business savvy people!
How is the average joe supposed to defend his property against these Robber Barons and the federal government (bought and paid for by them) that enables them? The federal government is nothing but a front for organized crime.
Really? What of the Zeugitae in the Athenian democracy? What of the sans-culottes in the French Revolution?
“Class struggle” predates Marx by millennia. And frankly, Marx was right when he noted that disparities in wealth & power is the primary engine of revolution: it’s within human nature to be jealous of those with more, especially if the dominant perception is that they don’t deserve it.
The idea that wealth can be deserved can flow from religion, culture, economic proportionality (which is what you identified) etc.
Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism) noted this rather obvious historical fact in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France”.
So I don’t really see what Marx has to do with anything. Is Trump a Marxist for focusing on America’s working & middle class?
Ummmm.... actually, I was kinda agreeing with you.
Hey!
I do not agree with all your propositions, however, I am highly empathetic.
I’ll say it again-—you are extremely articulate for the cause!
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.