-7 votes

To Strengthen and Protect American Companies: All Foreign Imported Goods Should Be Subject To Tariffs

To Strengthen and Protect American Companies: All Foreign Imported Goods Should Be Subject To Tariffs

Its about time we control the Mega Corporations around the world that pedal their good into the United States Tariff free.

President Nixon called for it and was attacked and forced to be removed from office because he threatened to weaken the Globalist attempt to take over and merge and destroy our U.S. Industrial base..

The 1973 Rockefeller created Trilateral Commission was to be used to end the Americans tradition of superior craftsmanship, manufacturing,supply and affordability.

As time when on other globalist schemes were brought into being such as CAFTA and NAFTA..

It is time to return to what made america great...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Woah!!! Money was

Woah!!! Money was invented?..... by the gov't?

You're on your own with that one.

We already know that money was NOT, and could not be invented by gov't. We already know that people exchange their products for products that are more sale-able, and preferably the MOST sale-able good(ie.:Money)to get around the limitations of direct exchange(barter).

No, gov't officials invented the WORD "salary".... when salt was viewed by the PEOPLE as money (the most sale-able good).

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Money, soldiers, wars, and whores

Money was invented to pay soldiers to fight wars, to then spend on whores, so they would be rejuvenated to fight more wars.

Eliminate those elements, and then, yes, you will have plowshares selling their produce to buy a widget at fair market price.

But as long as soldiers can be culled from among the peasants, the lords will pay them well with money to do their bidding.

Input

As for someone swaying you to come around, here's to a good start:

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1147.html

OK here it is..

"The heart of the contradictory thinking concerning tariffs is in the statement, "I favor open competition, but. . . ." Being human, men will often appeal to the State to protect their monopolistic position on the market. They secretly favor security over freedom. The State steps in to honor the requests of certain special interest groups – which invariably proclaim their cause in the name of the general welfare clause of the Constitution – and establishes several kinds of restrictions on trade."

"I favor open competition, but.."
I refuse to finance producers of products that were made by slaves. I do not refuse to finance those products because I somehow want to force them to be made within my own nation, not because of any sense of having a "better moral perspective", I choose not to finance them because I know that if I do not send the dictator my wealth for his cheap slave made products, that the dictator will have his head roll down the street because he will no longer have the funds to feed his slaves and the slaves will revolt no doubt. Once the slaves have revolted and look to us for leadership by example and not by the barrel of a gun, there will be hope of a better future for the slaves (good for them) and a better future for me because a new market where the free people (not slaves anymore..) can prosper has just come in to existence and a prosperous customer is a customer everyone wants, including me.

"Being human, men will often appeal to the State to protect their monopolistic position on the market. They secretly favor security over freedom."

That hat does not fit me.. do you agree with that?

"The State steps in to honor the requests of certain special interest groups – which invariably proclaim their cause in the name of the general welfare clause of the Constitution – and establishes several kinds of restrictions on trade."

Special interest groups would not have a leg to stand on if the only acceptable lawful argument they could make would be related to how free of a market their competition is working in. Remember, my point is not about economic protectionism. It's about changing the world by example in a non interventionist way. How could special interest groups even expect to get any favorable laws passed if "everyone" in Congress was a Liberty Movement supporter?

...

(I have read the article and don't appreciate his style of communicating the message he wants to share, I will return to this post to finish it, if (no offense) I find the will to do so.) :)

I think it's great that we are discussing this matter but I can't forget that their is more to life than debating tariffs lol.

Be back soon. Possibly.

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

I will read it and reply.

Thanks for the link.

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Rather than argue

The sarcastic display of this Topic appears to have inspired an interesting argument that may be worthy of whatever work is required to resolve the argument competitively.

Argument A:

Bad guys in the form of Nations exist, and therefore there is a need to be more powerful compared to the worst of the bad Nations of bad guys. Nations that do not find a way to be more powerful compared to the worst of the bad Nations may be destroyed or invaded, occupied, and controlled, or taken over, by the bad guys running the bad Nation.

Tariffs (or no trade) between the good Nation and the bad Nation works like a check valve, or a stop sign, to avoid the transfer of power from the people in the good Nation flowing to the people in the bad Nation.

If Tariffs (or no trade) between the good Nation and the bad Nation is not done, in some form, to stop the transfer of power from the good Nation to the bad Nation, the good Nation will grow less powerful while the bad Nation grows more powerful, which ensures the destruction, invasion, occupation, and loss of all power from the good people in the good Nation.

Argument B:

There is no such thing as a good Nation, so don't send any power (no trade) to the people running Nations, since all Nations are bad.
______________________________________________________

That may not be the words used by the people who argue over this subject matter, but to me that is essentially their arguments, and even if those are not their arguments, the idea here, to me, is to propose a competition that proves which way is the better way to deal with Nations, people, and trade.

If a State is a Nation, one and the same thing, and if a Democratic Federated Republic is a Voluntary Association, or Free Market Example, of Government, then that is not a Single, Monopoly, Nation, State.

Look at examples, or at least one example, such as the example provided by the time period in America between 1776 and 1788, or the time period between the signing of The Declaration of Independence and the signing of The (Monopoly) Constitution.

13 Nations Volunteered to Unite in mutual defense against bad Nations,and one bad Nation run by bad people in particular, that one Nation of bad people being the Red Coats with their invading army of bad guys raping and pillaging the countryside, at that time.

How did that work, did it work well?

13 Constitutionally Limited good (relatively good, or competitively good) Nations, or States, Volunteered to pay into (or not pay into) a Democratic Federated Republic or Free Market (pay or not pay, volunteer or not volunteer) Government Construction.

13 Sovereign Legal Fictions with Sovereign Free People volunteering to be joining, or not joining, each good, Free Market, Nation State, joined, by Volunteering, into one Democratic Federated Republic, which is not a Nation State, or Consolidated Involuntary, Slave Making Construction, or Monopoly (complete with a Legal Monopoly Money Power), not that, not bad, but good instead, how did that work?

So, knowing how Free Market Government did work, if you can get that far, assuming a lot, if you get that far, knowing that a Free Market Government Defensive Power of Volunteers can become one, in demonstrable fact, having it right there in front of you, seeing it, right there, knowing it, if you can get that far, then, from that point, apply this argument over Tariffs between good people in good Voluntary Nation States, and bad people in bad Nation States.

Suppose, for example, if you want, if you will, if you may, a future date, after the World War III effort ends, hopefully it just fizzles out, after that, after the end of this round of The World Wide Business Psycho, suppose, that Rand Paul, and Ron Paul are elected President and "VICE" President, and you can argue over who is who on that ticket, but suppose that happens in our future; just for laughs?

Suppose those two Pauls turn this Nation State, this Consolidated UnFree Market Government Monopoly POWER (complete with the Legal Monopoly Money Power) back into a Democratic Federated Republic of 50 or so Sovereign Separate Independent Voluntary Unionized Nation States Under one Free Market Voluntary Association, and the subject of HOW TO pay for the Federal part of the Free Market Government arises and the answers are offered by The People in those 50 odd States.

Does the Federal Government accept payments in Gold and Silver, from those people in those States, for a job well done?

Does the Federal Government accept payments in Oil from people in Texas, for a job well done?

Does Texas charge a Tariff for exports of Oil flowing from Texas to Arkansas?

Is part of the agreement among the Volunteers Volunteering to join (and pay for) a Federal Voluntary Defensive Union an agreement to avoid warlike measures, such as tariffs, even though they may be defensive warlike measures, among the Volunteers who Volunteer to combine defensive powers?

If Texas does not agree to not employ defensive warlike powers against Arkansas, or Kansas, then is Texas no longer accepted in the Democratic Federated Union, even if Texas has a lot of precious Oil?

Will all the other States decide to invade, occupy, and control the Oil in Texas if Texas is no longer volunteering to be part of the Involuntary Union?

If you don't get it, go ahead and blame me.

Joe

Read Economics in One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt.

I am through Chapter 16 myself and it clearly explains why protectionism via tariffs is a bad idea.

My question is why don't we hear our supposedly wise and learned Congress critters using the logic expressed by Mr. Hazlitt every time a new subsidy, regulation, tariff, government-private sector partnership, or other non-free market proposal is brought up?

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

LOL, if they used sound

LOL, if they used sound economic analysis, they'd have no way to justify their jobs.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Protectionism was a major factor that started the Civil War

and is never a good idea.

.....don't forget

.....don't forget WWII.

http://mises.org/daily/6429/FDR-Sowing-the-Seeds-of-Chaos

Protectionists always forget the concept of "tit-for-tat".

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

egapele's picture

comment deleted

got me :)

Basically a Constitutional idea

The Constitution did give Congress the power to raise revenue with tariffs. Woodrow Wilson and the 16th Amendment made it Constitutional to raise revenue with an income tax. This act altered the course of this Country. Instead of taxing import corporations for the bulk of federal revenue, most of the out tax revenue is now payed by our middle class. Using cheaper foreign labor has also become more lucrative for importing corporations especially with NAFTA, GATT, and other corporate friendly programs. In his last state of the union address, President Obama even had the audacity to promote his TPP proposal. The elite are winning this taxation battle as our middle class is being destroyed.

I would suggest one change in the OP proposal. As import tariffs are raised, federal income taxes and the IRS be phased out.

A pointless plan.

The OP was meant to be sarcastic(ie: not taken seriously). This is why:

Consumers pay the tariff, which means American consumers pay for import taxes, and foreign consumers would have to pay export taxes, which would hurt American companies, but at least it wouldn't DIRECTLY impoverish the rest of us, unlike an import tariff.

The middle class will just spend their income tax savings on the tariff, and have to pay higher prices for foreign AND domestic goods. After all, if American manufacturers have less competition, they will raise their prices(supply is the same, demand increases). More money spent, combined with less value received is kinda the essence, or definition, of impoverishment.

......Don't forget that a naval blockade is simply a tariff of %100, and is an effective war strategy that causes economic distress, not prosperity.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Thanks for caring about the little guy

I am glad you are against regressive taxation which hurts the poor and middle class more than the elite. So, we should be in agreement then, that a national sales tax would be worse than the income tax. Why should a homeless man have to pay sales tax to buy a new wheel for his shopping cart when he has no income because Tim Cook won't toss a penny into his tin cup from his limousine?

I think I can agree on that,

I think I can agree on that, with a little clarification.

All taxes meet the definition of theft, so I oppose them on this principle. I have no interest in trying to come up with some kind of "humane" theft.

So, yes, I oppose progressive taxes, regressive taxes, excise, sin, import, export, capital gains, etc., etc. just as I would any other theft.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Realistically speaking,

Realistically speaking, tariffs are not paid by the consumer. They are paid by both the consumer in terms of higher prices and by the producer in terms of less profits. The amount that gets shifted depends. There is real-world evidence of this. When Reagan lowered taxes, price levels were barely benefited. When Clinton raised taxes, it was almost all hurt the wallets of producers. When Bush cut taxes, it almost all went into the pockets of producers.

Now, when you hurt the pockets of producers, you hurt their ability to invest, grow, and give dividends. However, with the modern idea of borrow, borrow, borrow, this appears to have no effect.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

ecorob's picture

This is about 10 years overdue.

The multinationals sent the manufacturing base overseas to exploit slave labor.

Prices continued to rise and corporate profits exploded at the cost of a decent wage here in America.

The tariff should be large enough that it forces manufacturing to return to America.

You want to sell goods from China, India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh here in America? The CORPORATIONS will PAY to have these goods imported to America. If the law says that is illegal then CHANGE the law!

Just like when you CHANGED the law to support NAFTA and GATT...

Corporations are NOT people! They are greedy entities that have no regard for human life.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

If we protect US business it

If we protect US business it will become just weak enough to survive with that protection. Protecting business weakens it. Eventually the protection is too expensive and most of it dies. A small fraction can hang on via permanent taxpayer funded life-support but will produce an inferior product in perpetuity, at least until the taxpayer gets sick of it.

NAFTA, GATT, et all are bad because they are not free market. They give special privileges to corporations to do business while excluding the rest. That's fascism.

Corporations are not people, but they are comprised from people. Corporations have special privileges which should be removed. However the people in those corporations should neither have their rights infringed.

Citizen's United merely gives the people in corporations and unions (which are corporations) the same rights to act collectively as a rich individual. This should please you.

Taxing and regulating corporations simply secures their monopoly positions by making it almost impossible for new entry.

Why does Walmart own so much of the retail market? Because of boneheaded schemes of the people that hate walmart so much.

The corporations use you to create the world they want. You are their footsoldier, everything you call for helps them. They need you to be confused.

You want to destroy their monopolies and cartels? Remove their privilege. And to do this you need to learn the difference between rights and privilege.

You want to destroy their monopolies and cartels? Remove the tax, regulatory, and licensing hurdles which prevent competition with them.

You want to destroy their monopolies and cartels? Learn economics. Read Hazlitt.

In Addition

Although I agree that multinationals sent jobs overseas to exploit slave labor, I don't agree that the exploitation is such that these people occupying those jobs see it as such.

The reason that corporations sent jobs overseas was to rid themselves of the tax burden imposed upon them here in Amerika. Raising the tariff rate will only impose heavy costs that would end up being passed along to the consumer in higher product prices, or possibly lower wages for employees.

American's would enjoy higher standards of living if minimum wage laws were abolished as well. With wages set by the freemarket employers could necessarily hire those people looking to accept a lower pay rate and reduce the overall burden to their bottomline. And lower costs of manufacturing in America would only come about by decreasing the startup cost of business, be they small or large. With more capitol to work from businesses could either employ more people or look to other areas to improve sales or purchase new equipment to increase production.

Alot can be said to help produce jobs here in America, but it only comes about when government stays out of the way.

If you expect to change a law to create jobs here it only shows that you depend upon the "State" to lift the country out of economic turmoil. As we have seen over the years that is not the case, no matter how many laws are passed. And to continue to aid and abet the "State" in the hopes of arriving at a acceptable conclusion is just what politicians want.

Madness is the act of performing the same process continuously and expecting a different outcome.

You used the marxist

You used the marxist rhetoric, "exploit slave labor", yet the poorest Chinese people are seeing HUGE increases in prosperity, and t-shirts are more affordable than ever IN AMERICA. Could you point out the decline, please.

...And what makes you think the CORPORATIONS will pay for ANYTHING? They are just the middleman between the resources and the consumer. If the CORPORATIONS had to pay for stuff themselves, what would be the point of manufacturing? If I had to PAY to work, I'd just stay home.

Nah, the CORPORATIONS intend for the customer(that would be.....YOU) to pay, and RECEIVE(not pay) a profit, which will be used to expand operations, develop technology, maintain equipment, and...... PAY the EMPLOYEES(not slaves).

You are correct: Corporations aren't "people", they are "persons", and have been for over 700 YEARS. Corporations have no regard for human "life". They are interested in human SATISFACTION. Their fate is decided by paying customers. They give us what we WANT to buy, at a price we WANT to pay, or they shut the doors.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

ecorob's picture

"The chinese people are seeing huge increases...

in prosperity"? I should think so. ANY move away from a rice paddy and a dirt floor since the 1960's would be a HUGE leap!

I am talking about Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and about where the recent factory collapse from those slave labor exploitations of walmart a few weeks ago. You know, the ones that you somehow reverse engineer to make sound as though we, the people are using as some sort of Marxist "speak". You exhibit amazing idiocracy in your argument.

You say the corporations are NOT to blame??!!! That's the same argument Hillary is using right now. The same argument barry is using. It wasn't me (Hillary) that left stevens out in the cold, unprotected! It wasn't me (barry) that targeted my political enemies! It isn't us (the corporations) who moved our factories overseas and continue to raise consumer prices and report HUGE profits as buildings in india collapse on poorly paid workers toiling in unsafe conditions.

It was the BOOGEYMAN! The terrorist! That OTHER guy! Where the hell does the BUCK STOP?

ENFORCED Tariffs will bring the jobs back. Period. Corporations WILL pay them as they could NOT pass the price onto the consumer and believe the consumer would pay them. The American people would take a little satisfaction from their OWN blowback.

Your following remark is spoken like a true fascist;

"Corporations aren't "people", they are "persons", and have been for over 700 YEARS. Corporations have no regard for human "life". They are interested in human SATISFACTION. Their fate is decided by paying customers. They give us what we WANT to buy, at a price we WANT to pay, or they shut the doors."

Then, SHUT THE DOORS!!!! Human satisfaction? Who's satisfaction? The slave laborers?

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Dislike all you want, but

Dislike all you want, but Karl Marx, HIMSELF, IN HIS COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, used "exploited slave labor" to describe employees... And yes, payed employees are the OPPOSITE of unpaid slave labor.

Of course, I am literally saying CORPORATIONS ARE NOT TO BLAME. They didn't create the situation that makes capital flight satisfy human wants better than "patriotism". I'm saying it loudly and proudly, because it is the truth. I can explain this TRUTH in a way that even children can understand. If you are pretending to deny this TRUTH, then you simply want to argue.

It wasn't the "boogeyman", the "terrorist", the "other guy". There is no mystery. American manufacturers failed the profit/loss test, and (insert scapegoat country here) passed said test. Your dollars have spoken!!!

Tariffs, which are artificial costs, will produce THE EXACT RESULTS that artificial costs produce: artificially higher prices

Even YOU understand this truth(it's one of the characteristics of having a human mind).

The consumer pays for ALL EXPENSES, IN EVERY SITUATION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

No trade! Tariff, or not.

If they are enslaving worker, we shouldn't be trading with them. By buying their products we are being immoral. See what our immorality is getting us? Every day we become more and more of a slave. It's all a part of the piggydom we have lowered ourselves into--OINK OINK...Suweeeeeeeeee! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu0Q8CZ6now

Obviously

Of course it's clear that we shouldn't be trading with foreign companies that exploit their workers.

However, it is our own government that allows these imports within our borders. Without this there would be no problems with trade issues such as immoral practices by corporations. Be they foreign or domestic.

So, without the governments approval those companies wouldn't enjoy the freemarket very long. But in all seriousness people are allowed to make their own decisions on what to purchase and who to purchase from. Corporations do not force products down our throats, and to suggest such is to misplace blame.

Who is suggesting that?

I'm not. Each one of us has a choice to buy them or not.

Why

would Americans create quality products when we live in a fast money, consumer crazy, throw away society fueled by money printing and redistribution of wealth. What we need right now is to free up this economy and kill the debtmongers. We need interest rates that allow people to save.....but first the politically impossible has to happen, the purging of debt and failure of the least fit banks and companies.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

There are many more factors in the "lost manufacturing jobs"

In addition to the US 0% import tariff, there is the world leading US corporate income tax rate of 35% along with all the regulations and paperwork.

If you want jobs back to the US, start by eliminating the corporate income tax and then remove regulatory restrictions before implementing an import tariff.

Inaddition to that

Our abnormally high wages. Mobile capital (factories, equipment, tech) will always migrate to the lower cost labor.

You CAN make a pro tariff argument from an Austrian perspective

I'm sure this will get down voted by skimmers who won't bother to read it.

Free Trade arguments go back to David Ricardo's concept of Comparative Advantage. The theory postulates that, given certain assumptions, the prosperity of a nation's people will be increased by free trade.

The catch is in the assumptions. The benefits of Comparative Advantage assume FIXED CAPITAL, meaning the non-labor means of production cannot leave the country.

This simply is not the case. Without FIXED CAPITAL, factories, technology, and IP will migrate towards the lowest labor cost (ceteris paribus). That is what we are witnessing in America as our factories "migrate" from Cleveland to Beijing.

Both Rothbard and Mises acknowledge this. Mises outlines the assumptions of Comparative Advantage in Human Action. Rothbard, when presented with this argument responded by saying the migration of capital is "inevitable". They make a purely, utilitarian defense of free trade with no consideration for nationalism. Ultimately, countries will be impoverished by free trade as their capital is stripped off.

SO...

You can make an argument against free trade, but it has to be made on "nationalistic" grounds. You have to argue that, in order to preserve capitalism or individualism or classical liberalism or something, capital must be prevented from migrating to collectivist or feudal nation states.

It's a philosophical and ideological argument that can be made without violating the immutable laws of economics.

You are partly

You are partly correct....

Ludwig von Mises All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it. Human Action p. 737; p. 744

Ludwig von Mises The only case that can be made on behalf of protective tariffs is this: the sacrifices they impose could be offset by other, noneconomic advantagesfor instance, from a national and military point of view it could be desirable to more or less isolate a country from the world.

Ludwig von Mises The imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers. Human Action p. 742; p. 749

...BUT, what did he say about "Nationalism"? Considering that "Nationalism" resulted in Mises running for his life, he was no supporter....

Ludwig von Mises Nationalist policies, which always begin by aiming at the ruination of ones neighbor, must, in the final analysis, lead to the ruination of all. Liberalism p. 144

Ludwig von Mises The further a nation goes on the road toward public control of business, the more it is forced to withdraw from the international division of labor. Omnipotent Government p. 281

Ludwig von Mises It would be a mistake to ascribe the ascendancy of modern nationalism to human wickedness. The nationalists are not innately aggressive men; they become aggressive through their conception of nationalism. They are confronted with conditions which were unknown to the champions of the old principle of self-determination. And their etatist prejudices prevent them from finding a solution for the problems they have to face other than that provided by aggressive nationalism. Omnipotent Government pp. 81-82

Links:
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Tariffs
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Nationalism

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."