-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...

Comment viewing options

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

Fuck that lol

There are already huge protective tariffs on over 12,000 products from other countries.


I want the market to determine the price of goods not some bureaucrat in Washington.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

...Including sugar. Everyone

...Including sugar. Everyone enjoying their Monsanto-engineered,genetically modified high-fructose corn syrup? THIS is what tariffs produce. You shouldn't support tariffs UNLESS this is what you are trying to achieve.

"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."

The answer to that is

The answer to that is no.
Protectionist economies only protect slothful and inefficient businesses.

Think about it, would you really want to put a tariff on UPS and FEDEX and make the....US Postal service (I feel nauseous just saying it)... the go to parcel carrier?

Southern Agrarian

Funny thing is, there already

Funny thing is, there already exists a law that keeps competitors from delivering packages more efficiently than the USPS, making the USPS the only gov't run program to turn a profit(for a short spell) in US history.

Making you and I pay MORE for deliveries, to "protect" the USPS.... and they are STILL failing. Oh, the irony!!!

"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."

Why not

It worked for Herbert Hoover


I Lived In Japan From 1959-1965;

I saw them rise from a war torn bombed out country, to a prosperous nation relying on selected tariffs to finance the small government of the time. They had NO foreign military involvement and very few natural resources.

How did they begin to prosper?

I'm going to guess that raw materials were imported tax free, but foreign made items were sky high in price, forcing the japanese people to be as self sufficient as possible in the production of domestic essentials.
Workers saved a portion of their income, which eventually was the cause of an upward re-valuation of the Yen from 360 to the dollar to about 250 in 1971, on the day that President Nixon took the U.S. off the Gold redeemable U.S. dollar.

So, my humble opinion is; Tariffs do work if implemented correctly.


After, therefore because

After, therefore because of?


Please explain how making the citizens of a war-torn country pay MORE for the things they need leads to improved economizing of their resources, including the resource of human labor.

I'll explain the OPPOSITE of that stance: People in a war-torn country need to utilize their time and resources as efficiently as possible if they want to rebuild their country as fast as possible. Any opportunity to save time, labor, and resources will help speed recovery. Help from others, as well as access to resources that can't be had on a small island, such as Japan, GREATLY contributes to this.

Let's do a little thought experiment: We are in a desert country. The gov't of our country decides to lay a heavy tariff on foreign fresh water that is imported, you know, to protect the local water industry. After all, I bviously costs a lot more to get water out of the desert than, say, the great lakes. The local water industry couldn't possibly competitive with places that have an abundance of fresh water. How does the tariff aid in satisfying people's desire for clean, fresh water?

I explained how it doesn't, and will lead to the people having LESS water than they need/want. Anyone want to try and explain how it DOES give the people the water they need? This is what it takes to prove that tariffs, even "correctly implemented" ones, are a benefit.

Does that thought experiment make it easier to understand/accept that tariffs can NEVER be good for ANYONE?

"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."

Correctly "Implemented" Means A Reasonable Import TAX !

The { 100,000,000} million Japanese people, when I was there, had almost no cars, but electric rail service serviced most of the country, therefore oil/gasoline was not needed as much as in the USA, Europe, etc. Food production was very important everywhere, and Japan gets plenty of rain.

You must be talking about Israel Which borders on the Mediterranean Sea, when you're talking about a desert country, and fresh water.

Haven't you heard of the ways to turn salt water into fresh water?

If you'd please take the time to read Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it goes something like this:
Congress has the power to; Collect "Duties" etc. etc., which means customs duties, {Monies} so this is/has been a Constitutional law since about 1792.

All production promotes prosperity !


Slavery was "constitutional

Slavery was "constitutional law" for a good while, too. What your point? That we can get out of using our brains by shouting,"HEY, IT'S THE LAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!!"?

Nope, the world doesn't work that way. You actually have to THINK if you intend on making the world a better place. You can't just bury your head in the sand and rely solely on emotional rhetoric.

Slavery is bad because it benefits the owner at the slaves expense. Tariffs are bad because they benefit the uneconomical at the expense of the entire rest of the world, including you, PERSONALLY.

"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."

Slavery Was Outlawed, !

I think if the American blacks ever found out who was financing the slave trade,,,riots would break out.

Although slavery didn't ORIGINATE in the USA!

The Providence Journal did an expose' on the slavery and slave ship captains in the early days, about a year ago.



So were state-2-state

So were state-2-state tariffs. The US is literally the largest free trade zone in history, yet we have Americans supporting trade restrictions. Talk about cognitive dissonance!!!!

Think about the civil war. The north couldn't compete with the "cheap slave labor" of the south, so they enacted tariffs........ The south didn't want to let go of slavery because, get this, without slavery they couldn't compete with the tariffs!!!!

Slavery to protect against tariffs, tariffs to protect against slavery. THIS is protectionism. It is nothing more than economic warfare fueled by revenge.

"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."

You Have It Wrong, Brother !

Cotton grew well in the south, but wouldn't grow at all in the north because of the short growing season, so the north is where the first cotton mills were located. The first textile mill in the new world was started by a Samuel Slater who worked in a textile mill in England before immigrating to Rhode Island.
He memorized how to build the components of a textile mill, and built his own mill in Rhode Island, which I think is still an historical landmark.

The south decided to build their own textile mills eventually, and do away with shipping cotton to the northern textile mills.
This may have been one of the causes of the Civil war, which started when South Carolina attacked Fort Sumpter.

Article 1 section 9 U.S. Constitution: etc. etc. ... Nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear,or pay "Duties" in another.

{Although bribery could have been going on, like it is today many years later.}


Fresh water wasn't the point.

Fresh water wasn't the point. The point was "how does limiting people's resources help economic recovery?" It's a general question, put what ever labels you like on it.

No, all production dos NOT promote prosperity. Spending a dollar to make 80 cents does not, and can not ever, aid prosperity.

How does a place where water is scarce benefit from having their water imports restricted?

How does a place where food is scarce benefit from having their food imports restricted?

How does a place where steel is scarce benefit from having their steel imports restricted?

How does a place where cotton is scarce benefit from having their cotton imports restricted?

How does a place where rubik's cubes is scarce benefit from having their rubik's cubes imports restricted?


To defend tariffs as beneficial, you MUST address these questions with reasoned, logical explanations. Appeals to emotion, "fairness", or any other logical fallacy will NOT stop the impoverishment caused by tariffs.

"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."

Have You Traveled Around The World Very Much?

I've been to Japan, Mexico and Central America, New Zealand, and some Islands in the south Pacific.

What I saw first hand was: A large part of the population was involved in food production, everywhere.
Excess production was sold or traded for local currencies.

In order to have any money at all to buy anything, the money must be created. Production of "Wealth" { Wealth: Something that others will trade for or buy } creates prosperity. The more wealth that is created the wealthier the area where the wealth was created, slowly makes the whole area prosperous.

If you'd check your history, you'd see that most major cities around the world grew around a centralized farmers market, where local people sold products they themselves created.

Why would anyone buy things they can produce themselves?

Answer: Paper money distorts real value of labor, and costs of production.


The answer to your question

The answer to your question is a simple one: Because others are better at it and waste less time, labor, and resources.

Why didn't you build your own car? Cuz Ford is better at it.
Why don't you grow your own food? Cuz farmers are better at it.
Why didn't you build your own computer? Cuz Dell is better at it.
Why don't you knit your own socks? Cuz fruit of the loom is better at it.

Get it, now?

It's called "comparative advantage", and it explains how free trade DID make the world better. This isn't an opinion, it is a hard, irrefutable fact of reality that can NEVER be proven wrong. In fact, it is one of the foundational ideas of "modern causal-REALIST" economics. You know the economics that can explain why diamonds costs more than water, but water is more useful? You know, the kind of economics that explained the REAL world BETTER when merchantilism/protectionism/historicism FAILED to answer basic questions, such as,"why is gold so expensive, when iron is so useful?"

Reading material:

...And here is one from a middle-school math text(yes, it's so simple that children understand)...


BTW, you don't have to travel the world to understand basic logical reasoning...... or math, for that matter, lol.

"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."

I Don't Think You Understand My Original Point !

The tariffs imposed on Japan were only imposed on a certain few products.
Imported Liquor.
Imported Tobacco.
Imported new Automobiles.
Imported Jewelry.
Imported American style clothes.
Gasoline/oil to the general public.

And maybe other products that I never knew about.

The bottom line is:
Japanese tariffs did NOT affect the everyday life of the average Japanese person !


Your "bottom line" is, well,

Your "bottom line" is, well, forgive me for using the word, but, it's very ignorant.

If I were to tell you that you would not be affected if gasoline went from $4/gallon to $10/gallon, you would call me a liar. You DID say the people in Japan weren't affected, so......

..... I'm going to ahead and confidently call you a liar.

Tariffs on liquor didn't affect the average liquor consumer?
Tariffs on tobacco didn't affect the average tobacco consumer?
Tariffs on automobiles didn't affect the average automobile consumer?
Tariffs on jewelry didn't affect the average jewelry consumer?
Tariffs on clothing didn't affect the average clothing consumer?
Tariffs on oil didn't affect the average oil consumer?

Was that your idea of humor? You sure you want to hold that line?

Making YOU pay more, or go with less OBVIOUSLY, and self-evidently, affects YOU. Why would reality be any different in Japan?

A tariff on "X" obviously makes "X" cost more. The fact that "X" now costs more OBVIOUSLY has a negative affect on everyone who desires "X". People who desire "X" will now have to go with less "Y" than before, so they can still afford "X". The people are poorer to a specific degree that EXACTLY MATCHES the tariff on "X".

Having phrases the problem using variables, can we now get off of the empiricist/statistics crap and USE OUR BRAINS. If you have less than before, you are OBVIOUSLY, and by definition, poorer than before.

But, you are right, those Japanese citizens that, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't drive, didn't believe in aesthetics, didn't want clothing, and had no need for transportation were not affected. Of course the only Japanese that fit that criteria were dead people. So, yes, dead people were spared the evils of tariffs, lol. The rest had to pay more, OBVIOUSLY.

"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 The Insult {LIAR} But This Is My Last Post To You !

Oh, I forgot ignorant also.

When people are in the process of recovering from a terrible WAR, WW II {Which takes years and years} they are only using money for the essentials of life, they can't afford very much, because the country was partially destroyed by 2 Atomic bombs, and other acts of war, which had a horrific affect on all the Japanese people, leaving many, many destitute and unable to buy very much.


I will give you one example

Japan has high tariffs on food imports, the purpose is to support the Japanese farmers. Without the tariffs Japan would not have a domestic food supply because foreign competition would soon end most all agriculture on the island. There is no way Japan can produce food anywhere near the cost the US can, they just don't have the efficiencies of scale or the huge expanses of arable land the US does. Without the Japanese farmers a simple embargo would starve the island country into surrender.


Japan did grow enough food to feed themselves when I was there !

As far as I know all Japanese food was very cheap when I was there.

Much of the land was used to grow rice, which was the staple of their diet. Hills were terraced into rice paddies.
Japan, is surrounded by ocean, the people ate lots of sea food, with the rice.


You may be right, I don't know. Japan does protect the farmers

They have for years, however food prices are very high in Japan. Check this out, can Japan compete in the world market against imports?

Terraced rice paddies can't compete with $500,000 tractors and combines sweeping accross thousands of acres, just sayin.

"It is no crime to be

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

Tariff, as all protectionism, weakens the 'protected' by insulating them from market forces that make them strong. Ultimately this 'protection' makes them too unfit to compete at all. IE the US auto industry.

If you want to strengthen America, America needs to again be the economic Sparta where the strong firms, strong by nature and not by government picking winners and losers, eat the weaker. American business is like a toy poodle or taco dog, bred to be weak, and protected from the realities of the the world. Their job is to be cute and fluffy to please politicians, and could no more exist without the protection of those politicians than a taco dog can exist in the wild.

If you want American industry to be the lion of the world again, simply cease protecting it. Do this slowly enough so those with potential to dominate will be able to adapt.

The beauty of capitalism is that firms must face evolutionary forces but people needn't, they can simply move to the new firm. It is exactly 'dog eat dog capitalism' that protects people from having to eat dogs, or being eaten by them.

Markets must evolve so that people do not face evolutionary forces. Capitalism, real capitalism, is the humane evolutionary advance of evolution itself.

You're A Good American

Being a little sarcastic seems to bring out the best in my fellow Dpers..

Have a good weekend patriot!

tasmlab's picture

Kind of a cruel joke

Kind of a cruel joke to play on a bunch of people who study their economics. Your subtly was too genuine!

(glad I saw this sub-post)

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football


I walked right into that one.

Hah!!! I called it. Well

Hah!!! I called it.

Well played, emalvini, well played. ;)

"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."

Protect uncompetitive business from competition.

But, first exports are needed so we'd have something to protect.

Free includes debt-free!

I don't know why, but I love

I don't know why, but I love sarcastic posts like this.

It's SARCASM, people!!! The OP isn't serious.

No one living in the largest free trade region in the world(the US)would seriously be promoting mercantilism/protectionism. No would suggest that MORE crony corporatism is the solution to the problems caused by crony corporatism. It's obviously sarcasm.

It is sarcasm, isn't it? Please tell me the original post is sarcasm.

"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."


Yeah, I don't know if I should laugh at the post or your comment.

Please advise!