Replies

They speak for themselves. It is on their website.

I personally am an advocate for low, uniform tarrifs.

And further, I don't need to "admit" things as if they were something to be ashamed of. The Cato Institute is a public policy think tank and one of ther most respected in the world. I have never heard a single responsible knowledgeable person accuse them of using cooked statistics. Even the liberals haven't done that.

They don't need to mislead, they put all their cards on the table and try to convince people to advance civil society instead of government intervention. People agree or not.

They speak for themselves as an advocate for no tariffs. I have spent a great deal of time researching the Cato institutes stands on trade and immigration issues and I stand by my opinion. They are no more to be trusted for factual reporting on the issues than is Radio Havana.

I was eeking common ground not asking for an admission of any culpabilty of anything.

They don't need to mislead, they put all their cards on the table and try to convince people to advance civil society instead of government intervention. People agree or not.

Now I think it is clear to anyone who visits their web site the do try to mislead and they do not put all their cards on the table. I in other words think your opinion not clearly labeled as such is unsupported by a a visit to their web site.

Now you favor low uniform tariffs. I presume you have a reason. Can you show how low uniform tariffs provide a quantifiable net benefit or is based upon your person philosphical beliefes . If the later I will forego further discussion of the quantifiable arguments. If the former I will ask for some hard numbers that support a net benefit from that policy. At least one case looking at both sides of the issue would be sufficient to continue a rational discussion. If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.