RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Tariffs -- The Taxes That Made America Great - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tariffs -- The Taxes That Made America Great Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,337
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:54 PM

Tariffs -- The Taxes That Made America Great

Patrick J. Buchanan
CNS News
5/14/19

EXCERPT:

As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington Post: "Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs."

The story began: "National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration's tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump's repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot the bill."

A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.

A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax.

If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.

China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China's economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.

Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party's path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade.

The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." It was the second act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.

After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.

Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln's War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer "has no right or claim to equality with our own. ... He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties."

That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 15 May 2019 - 01:59 AM

Pat and Bay are great people. I voted for Pat when he ran. We really need Pat as President then and would not be tussling with China now.
0

#3 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,939
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 15 May 2019 - 07:53 AM

View PostModerator T, on 14 May 2019 - 10:54 PM, said:

Tariffs -- The Taxes That Made America Great

A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.

A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax.

If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.

Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party's path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade.

After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.

Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln's War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer "has no right or claim to equality with our own. ... He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties."


That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buchanan's argument has more holes in it than your grandmother's pincushion. To illustrate, let us follow his idea, that tariffs promote prosperity, to its logical conclusion and prohibit imports of everything. That way, we would not be protecting domestic producers of some products while failing to protect others. If you couldn't find a domestic-made product of something you want, you simply do without it. What would be the result of this? Wouldn't it greatly benefit American producers of all goods? Of course it would, until they discovered that the consumers of their products will not pay whatever prices the producers of it choose to charge. They will do as Buchanan suggests and do without it.

But, of course, we never put a complete tariff on everything, we put it only on some things, which means we benefit the protected domestic industries at the expense of the unprotected American consumers and unprotected American exporters. This is crony capitalism and history offers many examples of how disastrous it is--for the unprotected, anyhow.

In the early 19th Century, the British government maintained high tariffs on imported grain under the Corn Laws. This benefitted the land owners at the expense of the consumers, which was just fine with the land owners. It wasn't so popular with the consumers. Among other things, it meant that Britons had to wear cheap clothing even in a textile-producing country, because they had to pay more for their food. The reduction in the British standard of living was most evident in years of bad harvests. In the years of the Irish Potato Famine, Britons went hungry while Irishmen starved. Eventually, the British repealed the Corn Laws even though that meant cheap American grain imports. The result was unprecedented prosperity, since Britain bought imported grain by selling an increasing volume and variety of manufactured articles.

If high tariffs, or "economic patriotism", were the path to prosperity, then the high Smoot-Hawley tariffs enacted in 1930 would have prevented or at least cured the Great Depression. Instead, they badly aggravated it. To support his argument, Buchanan cites past tariffs which benefited some Americans while ignoring the Americans they harmed. Meanwhile, he ignores tariffs like the Smoot-Hawley example, which harmed nearly all of us. One fallacy after another.
0

#4 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,572
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 15 May 2019 - 08:05 AM

View PostMartin, on 15 May 2019 - 07:53 AM, said:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buchanan's argument has more holes in it than your grandmother's pincushion. To illustrate, let us follow his idea, that tariffs promote prosperity, to its logical conclusion and prohibit imports of everything. That way, we would not be protecting domestic producers of some products while failing to protect others. If you couldn't find a domestic-made product of something you want, you simply do without it. What would be the result of this? Wouldn't it greatly benefit American producers of all goods? Of course it would, until they discovered that the consumers of their products will not pay whatever prices the producers of it choose to charge. They will do as Buchanan suggests and do without it.

But, of course, we never put a complete tariff on everything, we put it only on some things, which means we benefit the protected domestic industries at the expense of the unprotected American consumers and unprotected American exporters. This is crony capitalism and history offers many examples of how disastrous it is--for the unprotected, anyhow.

In the early 19th Century, the British government maintained high tariffs on imported grain under the Corn Laws. This benefitted the land owners at the expense of the consumers, which was just fine with the land owners. It wasn't so popular with the consumers. Among other things, it meant that Britons had to wear cheap clothing even in a textile-producing country, because they had to pay more for their food. The reduction in the British standard of living was most evident in years of bad harvests. In the years of the Irish Potato Famine, Britons went hungry while Irishmen starved. Eventually, the British repealed the Corn Laws even though that meant cheap American grain imports. The result was unprecedented prosperity, since Britain bought imported grain by selling an increasing volume and variety of manufactured articles.

If high tariffs, or "economic patriotism", were the path to prosperity, then the high Smoot-Hawley tariffs enacted in 1930 would have prevented or at least cured the Great Depression. Instead, they badly aggravated it. To support his argument, Buchanan cites past tariffs which benefited some Americans while ignoring the Americans they harmed. Meanwhile, he ignores tariffs like the Smoot-Hawley example, which harmed nearly all of us. One fallacy after another.

And I’ll say this to your fine theory: your world-wide fully open free markets ASSUME that the participants are nice players. If they’re not, but let’s say begin to steal other people’s IP, and value their currency artificially, and have unfair labor practices, and don’t adhere to quality and regulatory standards like others do.....in the REAL world scenario, do you let it continue?

(I say no, and I applaud Trump for fighting back. The aim is to get back to no tariffs when China starts behaving like a responsible adult.)
0

#5 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 15 May 2019 - 02:37 PM

Sigh…Okay one more time.

The theory promoting free trade was popularized (though not originated) by a treatise written by David Ricardo. Ricardo’s treatise has two main branches, one is free trade when nations have comparative advantage in the goods and services traded for and the other branch is free trade when one party has a absolute advantage compared to the other party. Most people have never been taught Ricardo’s entire theory much less read his original work. In short when you engage in free trade with an entity that holds an absolute advantage over you, you lose your shirt. In many areas, China holds what amounts to an absolute advantage.

As a related aside, Freeman among others came up with a trade zone strategy in order to convert absolute advantage into comparative advantage by, gasp, tariffs. It is too bad it was never implemented.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users